Notice to those who believe armed revolution is necessary

[Eggs Ackley]

You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted. But that shouldn't
stop you from sending in your generous gift!
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

[Fred Brown]

"Eggs Ackley" <moen...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:210d8c91-4d88-44d9...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted. But that shouldn't
> stop you from sending in your generous gift!
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

Outnumbered by whom?
Outgunned by whom?
U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
It seems you are outnumbered.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Eggs Ackley" <moenk...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>
> news:210d8c91-4d88-44d9...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted.  But that shouldn't
> > stop you from sending in your generous gift!

> >http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-v...

>
> Outnumbered by whom?
> Outgunned by whom?
> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
> It seems you are outnumbered.

Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders
instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
many would join the side of freedom.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:186c808b-3a73-4422...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Outnumbered by whom?
>> Outgunned by whom?
>> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>> It seems you are outnumbered.
>
>Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders

"Illegal orders" as defined by who?

>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>many would join the side of freedom.

I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
Constitution. One of them will be wrong.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:186c808b-3a73-4422...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Outnumbered by whom?
>>> Outgunned by whom?
>>> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>>> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>>> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>>> It seems you are outnumbered.
>>
>>Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders
>
> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?

The individual soldier.

>
>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>many would join the side of freedom.
>
> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.

Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.

Now, who do you think would be that group?

[deep]

Those who refuse to allow their militias to be well regulated.
You lose, get used to it. The only thing that remains to be seen is
if you survive your insurrection or we pry your gun from you cold dead
hands. Personally I'm looking forward to prying them from your cold
dead hands.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:j5r5o8lmpqhvllbk8...@4ax.com:

I am betting that would be a pleasure you will have to forego.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:klup7c$mq3$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>

>> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>
> The individual soldier.
>
>>
>>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>>many would join the side of freedom.
>>
>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
>> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>
> Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>
> Now, who do you think would be that group?
>

So you admit all this pro-gun sentiment has nothing to do with self-defense,
but rather with anti-federal government rage?

[deep]

The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
It's about imposing your ideas on others. Conservatives have always
been driven by a "might makes right" philosophy. Guns makes it
possible for them to impose their hatred and sickness on others since
without them they are nothing but a bunch of impotent rednecks and old
men. What they haven't figured out that even with their guns they are
still nothing but a bunch of impotent rednecks and old men.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 2, 4:57 pm, deep wrote:

> The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
> It's about imposing your ideas on others.

Oh really? Please provide some examples of conservatives using guns
to impose their ideas on others.

>  Conservatives have always
> been driven by a "might makes right" philosophy.

Sounds like you statists. You want to use the power of government to
do things like tell farmers they cannot have homes on their property
for their hired help, or host weddings on their property etc. Or to
tell property owners in the Gorge what they can and cannot do on their
own property. Or to tell short mothers that they cannot have drop-
side cribs for their babies etc.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:c10ca6f8-1e26-4780...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

>On May 2, 4:57 pm, deep wrote:
>
>> The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>> It's about imposing your ideas on others.
>
>Oh really?

Yes, really.

> Please provide some examples of conservatives using guns
>to impose their ideas on others.

George Tiller.
David Gunn
etc

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...

Who is doing that?

>> You lose, get used to it.

Haven't noticed it.

So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able to
regulate the militia.

(Because I bet dollars to donuts you're going to prove you don't know the
difference between the people and the militia)

>> The only thing that remains to be seen is
>> if you survive your insurrection

What insurrection?

Are you going on about your delusional fantasies again on how you will hide
out in your basement, stuff yourself on stored food and kill your neighbors
because you refuse to participate in their democratic socialism?

>or we pry your gun from you cold dead
>> hands.

Who is 'we', Dudu?

>> Personally I'm looking forward to prying them from your cold
>> dead hands.

Somehow I doubt you will have have the chance. But I certainly acknowledge
your desire to engage in your pacifism by murdering me so you can strip me
of my arms.

>
> I am betting that would be a pleasure you will have to forego.

I bet that's not all he's going to have to forego.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kluu97$880$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I admit no such thing. You asked a question, and I answered it.

Now you wish to try to assert it meant something else.

That implication is purely something you invented by pulling it out of your
ass.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:57:59 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:53:29 -0700, "Baxter"
><baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:klup7c$mq3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>>>
>>> The individual soldier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>>>>many would join the side of freedom.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
>>>> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>>>
>>> Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>>>
>>> Now, who do you think would be that group?
>>>
>>So you admit all this pro-gun sentiment has nothing to do with self-defense,
>>but rather with anti-federal government rage?
>>
>The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>It's about imposing your ideas on others.

Really? So I'm imposing my ideas on you? You're not free to have your
own ideas because of me?

That's really fucking cool.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 21:21:57 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>news:kluu97$880$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> -
>>

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:klup7c$mq3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>>>
>>> The individual soldier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>>>>many would join the side of freedom.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
>>>> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>>>
>>> Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>>>
>>> Now, who do you think would be that group?
>>>
>> So you admit all this pro-gun sentiment has nothing to do with
>> self-defense, but rather with anti-federal government rage?
>
>I admit no such thing. You asked a question, and I answered it.
>
>Now you wish to try to assert it meant something else.
>
>That implication is purely something you invented by pulling it out of your
>ass.

There is *REALLY* something wrong with this individual.

He's also claiming we're "imposing" our "ideas" on him.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:klv3b9$j60$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Hmmm.. Neither of those is a valid example.

Lone individuals and not forcing others to accept their ideas.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8h46o89ekep4is170...@4ax.com...

Well, that's what happens when we keep imposing reality on his delusions.
:-)

[Too_Many_Tools]

On May 2, 11:05 am, Eggs Ackley <moenk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted.  But that shouldn't

> stop you from sending in your generous gift!http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-v...

I will be pissing on their graves....and laughing my ass off.

Laugh..laugh..laugh...

TMT

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...

> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>

> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able to
> regulate the militia.
>

Your "militia" is anti-government.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:klv39l$k4j$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:kluu97$880$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:klup7c$mq3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>>>
>>> The individual soldier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>>>>many would join the side of freedom.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and
>>>> the Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>>>
>>> Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>>>
>>> Now, who do you think would be that group?
>>>
>> So you admit all this pro-gun sentiment has nothing to do with
>> self-defense, but rather with anti-federal government rage?
>
> I admit no such thing. You asked a question, and I answered it.
>
> Now you wish to try to assert it meant something else.
>
> That implication is purely something you invented by pulling it out of
> your ass.
>

Caughtcha, didn't I?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8f46o81rfnl8ddb03...@4ax.com...

Then you have absolutely no reason for armed insurrection.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:klv3vn$nt6$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:klv3b9$j60$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:c10ca6f8-1e26-4780...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...
>>>On May 2, 4:57 pm, deep wrote:
>>>
>>>> The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>>>> It's about imposing your ideas on others.
>>>
>>>Oh really?
>>
>> Yes, really.
>>
>>> Please provide some examples of conservatives using guns
>>>to impose their ideas on others.
>>
>> George Tiller.
>> David Gunn
>> etc
>
> Hmmm.. Neither of those is a valid example.
>
> Lone individuals and not forcing others to accept their ideas.
>

So Tiller's killer wasn't imposing his ideas on to Tiller when he shot him?

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able to
>> regulate the militia.
>>
> Your "militia" is anti-government.

Really? The Virginia State Defense Force is "anti-government"?

Maybe you mean the Militia of the United States is anti-government?

So far as I know those are the only two militias to which I belong.

One is state and the other is federal.

Further, I accept you can't back up the claim that the government is being
refused when trying to regulate the militia.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:klv7pu$sfa$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

You think your ability to make up a straw man is some how a caughtcha?

Weird.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:klv7r7$sgc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Depends are you trying to force your ideas on him?

Specifically are you attempting to violate his rights by force?

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:klv7u5$sk3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Nope, because Tiller never accepted those ideas or was forced to live by
them.

Oh, and an individual is still not "conservatives".

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Eggs Ackley
<moen...@comcast.net> wrote:

>You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted. But that shouldn't
>stop you from sending in your generous gift!

>http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

The Taliban are outnumbered and outgunned and, supposedly,
outsmarted too ..... :-)

Asymmetrical warfare tactics *work*.

There are a number of good reasons NOT to launch revolutions
in 1st-world countries - which I've expounded upon before here -
but merely being outnumbered by govt thugs and their head-
busters isn't one of those reasons.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>>
>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able
>> to regulate the militia.
>>
> Your "militia" is anti-government.

Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC. It is in his
statutes.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:36:41 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:


>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8f46o81rfnl8ddb03...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:57:59 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>>>It's about imposing your ideas on others.
>>
>> Really? So I'm imposing my ideas on you? You're not free to have your
>> own ideas because of me?
>>
>Then you have absolutely no reason for armed insurrection.
>

Really? So I'm imposing my ideas on you? You're not free to have your
own ideas because of me?

I can tell when you're afraid to back up your bullshit, because you
immediately change gears, move the goal posts, and go with the
smokescreen.

So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about imposing
my ideas. Take your time, Baxter. This ought to be entertaining.

I mean, if you have the balls to do it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

LOL

Tell us more about how we like imposing our wills on you.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1B4DE678...@216.196.121.131...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>>>
>>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able
>>> to regulate the militia.
>>>
>> Your "militia" is anti-government.
>
> Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC.

Not if he's anti-government.

>It is in his
> statutes.

Virginia Defense Force is a government entity. If he's anti-government,
he's a traitor

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:drc7o8p4mp0pnop9q...@4ax.com...

If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're trying to
force your idea on to me.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:06:47 -0700, "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:drc7o8p4mp0pnop9q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:36:41 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8f46o81rfnl8ddb03...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:57:59 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>>>>>It's about imposing your ideas on others.
>>>>
>>>> Really? So I'm imposing my ideas on you? You're not free to have your
>>>> own ideas because of me?
>>>>
>>>Then you have absolutely no reason for armed insurrection.
>>>
>>
>> Really? So I'm imposing my ideas on you? You're not free to have your
>> own ideas because of me?
>>
>> I can tell when you're afraid to back up your bullshit, because you
>> immediately change gears, move the goal posts, and go with the
>> smokescreen.
>>
>> So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about imposing
>> my ideas. Take your time, Baxter. This ought to be entertaining.
>>
>> I mean, if you have the balls to do it.
>>
>If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're trying to
>force your idea on to me.

"If?"

Who is "threatening" you?

Paranoid much?

Again: So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about
imposing my ideas.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:57h7o8pop7tu4c1ei...@4ax.com...

The 29% that think armed revolution "might be necessary".

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:km0frl$3aa$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1B4DE678...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>>>>
>>>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being
>>>> able to regulate the militia.
>>>>
>>> Your "militia" is anti-government.
>>
>> Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC.
>
> Not if he's anti-government.
>
>>It is in his
>> statutes.
>
> Virginia Defense Force is a government entity.

No shit?? Really??

If he's
> anti-government, he's a traitor

Who has claimed he was *anti* government? You? You said that his
militia was antigovernment. I told you who his militia is, you idiot.

His militia reports to the state government. He is also part of the
militia of Article 1(8)(15 16) which reports to the federal government.
Think you can grasp that?

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:km0g8v$4pq$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where was he threatening you? Can you produce it or cite it?

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:km0m5f$m6t$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:57h7o8pop7tu4c1ei...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:06:47 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're
>>>trying to force your idea on to me.
>>
>> "If?"
>>
>> Who is "threatening" you?
>
> The 29% that think armed revolution "might be necessary".
>
>
>

How is that threatening you? Please be precise.

[Ivan Bodley]

"Baxter" wrote in message news:km0m5f$m6t$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

####
Then you have that 90% that will protect you, as you do not want to be able
to protect yourself! :)

Oh wait! The police are NOT obligated to save or wipe your ass, you retard!

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 11:42:52 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>news:km0m5f$m6t$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> -
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:57h7o8pop7tu4c1ei...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:06:47 -0700, "Baxter"
>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're
>>>>trying to force your idea on to me.
>>>
>>> "If?"
>>>
>>> Who is "threatening" you?
>>
>> The 29% that think armed revolution "might be necessary".
>>
>>
>>
>
>How is that threatening you? Please be precise.

Oh come on... multiple right wing extremists here in the survival
groups are gloating over the thought of being able to gun down
("cull") the liberals. The sociopathy and hatred are clear. A fairly
large percentage of the population are literally looking forward to
participating in mass murder and it is a sound coming entirely from
the right wing.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:s9q7o8lv1me3cscel...@4ax.com:

Hi, Baxter.....when did you change your nym?

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:28 -0500, RD Sandman

I'm not Baxter. I've never posted here under another handle. Simple
fact is, a lot of progressives are waking up, and sickened by hatred
coming from the right wing and are willing to take on the gun lobby
and their mindless toadies.

[Liberal Here]

On May 3, 12:40 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Baxter" <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote innews:km0frl$3aa$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
>
> > "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:XnsA1B4DE678...@216.196.121.131...

> >> "Baxter" <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> >>news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> >>> "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

> >>>news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>
> >>>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being
> >>>> able to regulate the militia.
>
> >>> Your "militia" is anti-government.
>
> >> Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC.
>
> > Not if he's anti-government.
>
> >>It is in his
> >> statutes.
>
> > Virginia Defense Force is a government entity.
>
> No shit??  Really??
>
>  If he's
>
> > anti-government, he's a traitor
>
> Who has claimed he was *anti* government?  You?  You said that his
> militia was antigovernment.  I told you who his militia is, you idiot.
>
> His militia reports to the state government.  He is also part of the
> militia of Article 1(8)(15 16) which reports to the federal government.
> Think you can grasp that?

Actually, state militias report to the governor, not the Federal
government....Congress calls them to active service as the US Army.
At least in theory....in practice, not so much.

BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but
not having a standing army. Not to fight the federal government.

A standing navy was necessary because a navy, even in the 18th
century, was more technical and demanding than a simple army,
requiring maintenance of armed men-o-war and armed frigates.

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:8b78o8l6f2npplule...@4ax.com...

I'm not Baxter. I've never posted here under another handle.

####

You lied again, you retard! You are in DEEP DUDU, you retard!

[RD Sandman]

Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4f52a376-eeed-465b...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> On May 3, 12:40�pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Baxter" <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote

>> innews:km0frl$3aa$1@speranz
> a.aioe.org:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > -
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, and Scout's state militia is the Virginia Defense Force. BTW,
current state militias (an act performed by the state's National Guard
reports to whoever called it to service....state OR federal.

..Congress calls them to active service as the US Army.
> At least in theory....in practice, not so much.

In practice it is still the Virginia National Guard.

> BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
> governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but
> not having a standing army. Not to fight the federal government.

The concept of state militias was to protect the sovereignty of the state
from an overreaching, too powerful central government. Something the
anti federalists were afraid of. The federal government's side of the
militia was delineated in Article I(8)(15 16).

> A standing navy was necessary because a navy, even in the 18th
> century, was more technical and demanding than a simple army,
> requiring maintenance of armed men-o-war and armed frigates.

Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:8b78o8l6f2npplule...@4ax.com:

I know. It was a way of asking why you were answering a question
directed to Baxter. I want to know why HE thinks the comment about the
29% was threatening to HIM.

Simple
> fact is, a lot of progressives are waking up, and sickened by hatred
> coming from the right wing and are willing to take on the gun lobby
> and their mindless toadies.

And that has what to do with Baxter's answer he has yet to give?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f52a376-eeed-465b...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
>governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but
>not having a standing army.

I'd like to see some support of that claim. I think cost was a bigger
factor.

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B59084D...@216.196.121.131...

Did you notice that lovely "hate speech" emanating from dudu ??
I can just feel the "love"emanating from him as he typed:

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 08:47:20 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:


>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:57h7o8pop7tu4c1ei...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:06:47 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're trying to
>>>force your idea on to me.
>>
>> "If?"
>>
>> Who is "threatening" you?
>
>The 29% that think armed revolution "might be necessary".
>

Ah, so you've moved the goal posts from

"The conservatives' who love guns"

to

"the 29% who think armed revolution is necessary."

So basically your statement that ...

>The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
>It's about imposing your ideas on others.

...is just a bunch of horse shit, then, huh?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:27:55 -0600, deep wrote:


>I'm not Baxter. I've never posted here under another handle. Simple
>fact is, a lot of progressives are waking up, and sickened by hatred
>coming from the right wing and are willing to take on the gun lobby
>and their mindless toadies.

Bring it on, motherfucker.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:45:47 -0600, deep wrote:


>Oh come on... multiple right wing extremists here in the survival
>groups are gloating over the thought of being able to gun down
>("cull") the liberals.

Let's see what you claim you'd do in the same
situation...................

�If you people don't fucking wise up soon we are going to have to
start shooting you."
Message-ID: <v1e8r6pijl5btcjas...@4ax.com>

�Best part of when we become a communist country is we will get to
line trash like you up against a wall and shoot you.�
Message-ID: <l4dqc7l9s4fqk35rn...@4ax.com>

"I didn't say I was a communist. But I will volunteer for the firing
squad to shoot your ignorant ass."
� Schei�ekopf "Deep Dudu", Wed, 23 Nov 2011

"I said shut the fuck up. ...You are clearly and out of touch with
reality raving lunatic. So shut up now. Euthanasia is not far away
in your future." -Lagerf�hrerin Deep Dudu
Message-ID: <gtpmn7dprv625b0d5...@4ax.com>

"Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid. It's so good for the
planet and the species that you all are going to be dead soon."
-Deep "Spreading the Love" Dudu May 28, 2012

Big bulldozed pits are a better place for conservatives though.
Message-ID: <upin98td6j3nnqkib...@4ax.com>

>The sociopathy and hatred are clear.

They sure are in your statements above. Have you turned in your guns
yet?

> A fairly
>large percentage of the population are literally looking forward to
>participating in mass murder and it is a sound coming entirely from
>the right wing.

Should I add that lie to your list?


http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With Over 350 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:12:06 -0500, RD Sandman

You really fail to realize why someone might feel threatened by a
bunch of sociopaths threatening armed insurrection?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 18:35:42 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:12:06 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:8b78o8l6f2npplule...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:28 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>deep wrote in news:s9q7o8lv1me3cscel...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 11:42:52 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:km0m5f$m6t$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>>>>

If he was ten years old, maybe.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:km0frl$3aa$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1B4DE678...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>>>>
>>>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being able
>>>> to regulate the militia.
>>>>
>>> Your "militia" is anti-government.
>>
>> Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC.
>
> Not if he's anti-government.

When did I ever say I was anti-government, and how would my personal views
determine those of a group to which I'm a member?

>>It is in his
>> statutes.
>
> Virginia Defense Force is a government entity. If he's anti-government,
> he's a traitor

Perhaps, or it could just be that you're talking out your ass and letting
your ignorance, stupidity and bigotry get the better of you.


>
>
>

[Scout]

"Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f52a376-eeed-465b...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Which is what he said.

>Congress calls them to active service as the US Army.
> At least in theory....in practice, not so much.

Actually under Federal law the President has the power to directly call upon
the militia....including the state militias of any sort, including the State
Defense Forces.

> BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
> governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but
> not having a standing army. Not to fight the federal government.

Sorry, but that is also one of their purposes.

> A standing navy was necessary because a navy, even in the 18th
> century, was more technical and demanding than a simple army,
> requiring maintenance of armed men-o-war and armed frigates.

I would disagree with the technical aspect, but the difference at that time
is that it was fairly quick to assemble an army. A navy on the other hand
could take years simply to build the ships.

[deep]

Bullshit.

[deep]

The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Just when there's some hope, you go and prove again how stupid you
are.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:15:54 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 11:40:53 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>news:km0frl$3aa$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>>

LOL

Looks like Dudu is-- once again-- out of facts to play with.

[Gray Guest]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>

> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:186c808b-3a73-4422...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Outnumbered by whom?
>>> Outgunned by whom?
>>> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>>> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>>> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>>> It seems you are outnumbered.
>>
>>Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders
>
> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>
>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>many would join the side of freedom.
>
> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>
>
>
>

And dead. Case closed. Ready to find out how it ofes?

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Gray Guest]

Eggs Ackley <moen...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:210d8c91-4d88-44d9...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted. But that shouldn't
> stop you from sending in your generous gift!
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voter
> s-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

You are brain dead. Look into how the population was divided during the
Revolutionary War. About 1/3 against Britain, 1/3 for, 1/3 in the middle.

Frankly I couldn't beleive the numbers were that high. If you had a
functioning brain you might realize that that is really bad news for the
statists.

You do realize that not all 71% who aren't in the first group would fight,
don't you? Not in this country at this time. Especailly if it would mean
they miss thier gummint check and mind numbing entertainment.

[Gray Guest]

deep wrote in news:avu9o8t9fr9u5j576...@4ax.com:

Hey douchbag! Call the cops on you gun running neighbor yet?

[Gray Guest]

deep wrote in news:j5r5o8lmpqhvllbk8...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 18:30:04 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>>> -
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------------
>>>

>>> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:186c808b-3a73-4422...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com.
>>> .. On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Outnumbered by whom?
>>>>> Outgunned by whom?
>>>>> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>>>>> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>>>>> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>>>>> It seems you are outnumbered.
>>>>
>>>>Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders
>>>
>>> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>>

>>The individual soldier.

>>
>>>
>>>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>>>>many would join the side of freedom.
>>>
>>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and
>>> the Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>>

>>Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>>
>>Now, who do you think would be that group?
>>
> Those who refuse to allow their militias to be well regulated.
> You lose, get used to it. The only thing that remains to be seen is
> if you survive your insurrection or we pry your gun from you cold dead
> hands. Personally I'm looking forward to prying them from your cold
> dead hands.

[Gray Guest]

deep wrote in news:15v9o8lmcsee3rprb...@4ax.com:

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B66891CDC4EWe...@78.46.70.116...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>

>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
>> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>
> And dead. Case closed. Ready to find out how it ofes?
>

The dead side is always "wrong" - that still doesn't say anything about the
survivors freedom.

[Gray Guest]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:km36es$cj$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> "Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1B66891CDC4EWe...@78.46.70.116...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and
>>> the Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>>
>> And dead. Case closed. Ready to find out how it ofes?
>>
> The dead side is always "wrong" - that still doesn't say anything about
> the survivors freedom.
>
>
>
>

Well with Dems, Libs and progressives out of the way, things will be
immeasurably better. At least the smell will be and we won't have to listen
to you douchebags go on and on about race any more.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:15v9o8lmcsee3rprb...@4ax.com:

Legislatively, it was split from the US Army which is. In any case, just
because something is not explicitely mentioned in the Constitution it
does not mean it is unconstitutional. See Roe v Wade.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:9sl8o81p4c46h5h5q...@4ax.com:

I asked HIM, asshole. I am interested in his reasoning, not yours.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:km19j1$g3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "Liberal Here" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f52a376-eeed-465b...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>
>>BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
>>governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but
>>not having a standing army.
>
> I'd like to see some support of that claim. I think cost was a bigger
> factor.
>
>
>

Prevention of a standing army (or select militia) was on the forefront of
the anti-federalists. They were afraid of an overreaching central
government. Those rules were made in 1791, not 2000.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:km2ccu$76f$1...@dont-email.me:

I'll take door #2.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:avu9o8t9fr9u5j576...@4ax.com:

Post your proof, twinkle toes.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jv0ao8pnpp7lu6m08...@4ax.com...

Maybe he's stating that it's bullshit to assume there is any possibility
that Baxter can grasp what RD just pointed out.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1B692393...@216.196.121.131...

Wasn't a hard choice, was it?

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1B6927B6...@216.196.121.131...

Maybe, he's saying that it's bullshit to even assume there is any
possibility that Baxter could grasp that.

Not saying that was his intent, just pointing out another possibility.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:km3v03
$br5$1...@dont-email.me:

I like the easy ones.....

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:km3v28
$cap$1...@dont-email.me:

I could expect that from almost anyone else but, not Baxter's blood
brother Deep Shit.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> on or
about Fri, 3 May 2013 13:43:15 -0700 (PDT) did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>
>> > anti-government, he's a traitor
>>
>> Who has claimed he was *anti* government?  You?  You said that his
>> militia was antigovernment.  I told you who his militia is, you idiot.
>>
>> His militia reports to the state government.  He is also part of the
>> militia of Article 1(8)(15 16) which reports to the federal government.
>> Think you can grasp that?
>

>Actually, state militias report to the governor, not the Federal

>government....Congress calls them to active service as the US Army.

>At least in theory....in practice, not so much.
>

>BTW, the concept of state-controlled militias was to prevent central
>governnent from conducting bush 1/2 wars of agression and plunder but

>not having a standing army. Not to fight the federal government.
>

>A standing navy was necessary because a navy, even in the 18th
>century, was more technical and demanding than a simple army,
>requiring maintenance of armed men-o-war and armed frigates.

And it is a bit difficult to deploy the Navy pass the high tide
mark. A standing army can be deployed anywhere in the country. Which
is probably why the British Army was sent to collect colonialist's
arms, and not the Royal Navy.

tschus
pyotr

p.s. interesting tidbit - it is the Royal Navy, but the British Army.
(with the Royal Artillery as part of the British Army.)


>
>
--
pyotr filipivich
Gungrabber: Why would anyone need a 30 or 40 shot magazine
for any kind of sporting or protective purpose?
Bennet Langlotz: Why does the government *need* me to
take the time to reload?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Mmmm. A possibility. But then he'd be telling the truth. And we know
Dudu isn't capable of doing that.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:09:46 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
It's about imposing your ideas on others."
-Baxter

Somehow, my "love of guns" has caused Baxter to lose his free will and
has forced him to accept my ideas.

Can Baxter explain this? So far, no.

>>> So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about imposing
>>> my ideas. Take your time, Baxter. This ought to be entertaining.

>>If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're trying to
>>force your idea on to me.

How is Baxter being "threatened?"

Can Baxter explain this? So far, no.

>>
>>"If?"
>>
>>Who is "threatening" you?
>>

>>Paranoid much?
>>
>>Again: So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about
>>imposing my ideas.

"The 29% that think armed revolution 'might be necessary'."

-Baxter

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

"Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an
armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in
the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these
beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think
an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of
Republicans and 27 percent of independents."

So Baxter is "threatened" by the 18% of Democrats, 44% of Republicans,
and 27% of independents that think armed revolution might be
necessary.

These opinions are somehow "imposed" on Baxter.

Since "imposed" means to "Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to
be accepted or put in place," Baxter is saying that people who like
guns have forced him to believe that armed revolution is necessary,
even though it is a belief held by a minority.

"The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 3, 11:40 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote in news:km0frl$3aa$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1B4DE678...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>"Baxter" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>> news:klv7ni$s6p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>>>>"Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote in message
>>>> news:klv37f$joe$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:XnsA1B4A6CAB...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>>> So please tell me how the government has been refused from being
>>>>> able to regulate the militia.
>
>>>> Your "militia" is anti-government.
>
>>> Oh, his militia is the Virginia Defense Force, IIRC.
>
>> Not if he's anti-government.
>
>>> It is in his statutes.
>
>> Virginia Defense Force is a government entity.
>
> No shit?? Really??
>
>> If he's anti-government, he's a traitor
>
> Who has claimed he was *anti* government? You? You said that his
> militia was antigovernment. I told you who his militia is, you idiot.
>
> His militia reports to the state government. He is also part of the
> militia of Article 1(8)(15 16) which reports to the federal government.
> Think you can grasp that?
>

Actually, RD; the Virginia Defense Force is a State (only) Defense
Force (SDF) and as such is not subject to direct federal call-up under
Article 1(8)(15 16):

Virginia Defense Force

The Virginia Defense Force (VDF) is the Commonwealth's military
reserve.

The force is governed by the military laws of Virginia and managed by
the Virginia Department of Military Affairs. The chain of command for
the force consists of the Governor of Virginia (Commander-in-Chief),
Adjutant General of Virginia, and Commanding General of the Virginia
Defense Force.

http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

An SDF's role is to suplement the state's Army and Air National Guard
units while they are in Title 32 state military forces status; and to
replace them when the NGs are called into federal service under Title
10.

See Title 32 USC § 109 - Maintenance of other troops:

(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no
troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces
authorized by subsection (c).

(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the
Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces
authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or
prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the
Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain
defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be
used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or
commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers
necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the
armed forces.

(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is
not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed
forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence,
transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United
States.

(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established
under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the
armed forces.

Good reading from the US Army's "Center for Army Lessons Learned":

The Role of State Defense Forces in Homeland Security
by COL (Ret) John R. Brinkerhoff
Reprinted with permission from the Joint Center for Operational
Analysis Journal
[...]
Conclusion

Facing the threat of terrorist attack, it makes good sense to have
strong and effective state defense forces. States with these forces
should be encouraged to increase the strength and capabilities of
their existing units to be about half of their National Guard
strengths. States without these forces should be encouraged to form
them. This program takes advantage of the propensity of Americans to
volunteer, and the availability of large numbers of retired and former
service members who want to contribute to homeland security by putting
their military training and experience to good use as members of the
state defense forces. State defense forces can be a highly effective,
yet low cost, addition to the nation's defenses. The lessons of the
past and the exigencies of the present strongly suggest that it makes
good sense to have strong and effective state defense forces.

Note: This article was originally published in the December 2004
edition of the Joint Center for Operational Analysis Journal.
References and endnotes were removed from this article for reprinting
and are available upon request from the original publisher of this
article.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_10.asp

See also:

State Guard Association of the United States
http://www.sgaus.org/states/active-state-forces.asp

Arizona is one of the few states w/o an SDF.
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman)

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 5, 8:09 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
followed up with:

>
>
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:09:46 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"The conservatives' love of guns has never been about self defense.
> It's about imposing your ideas on others."
> -Baxter
>
> Somehow, my "love of guns" has caused Baxter to lose his free will and
> has forced him to accept my ideas.
>
> Can Baxter explain this? So far, no.
>
>>>> So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about imposing
>>>> my ideas. Take your time, Baxter. This ought to be entertaining.
>
>>> If you're threatening me, especially because of politics, you're trying to
>>> force your idea on to me.
>
> How is Baxter being "threatened?"
>
> Can Baxter explain this? So far, no.
>
>>>"If?"
>
>>> Who is "threatening" you?
>
>>> Paranoid much?
>

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”
--Kurt Donald Cobain

>
>>> Again: So tell me more about my love of guns and how it's all about
>>> imposing my ideas.
>
> "The 29% that think armed revolution 'might be necessary'."
> -Baxter
>
> http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/
>
> "Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an
> armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in
> the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these
> beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think
> an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of
> Republicans and 27 percent of independents."
>
> So Baxter is "threatened" by the 18% of Democrats, 44% of Republicans,
> and 27% of independents that think armed revolution might be
> necessary.
>
> These opinions are somehow "imposed" on Baxter.
>
> Since "imposed" means to "Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar)
> to be accepted or put in place," Baxter is saying that people who like
> guns have forced him to believe that armed revolution is necessary,
> even though it is a belief held by a minority.
>
> "The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
> - Obi-Wan Kenobi
>

<Rimshot.wav> :)

[Yardpilot]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:47:57 PM UTC-7, deep wrote:

> Those who refuse to allow their militias to be well regulated.

The militia of the United States is fully trained and regulated well beyond the standards set by the government. "Regulated" does not mean controlled when used in this context.

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:aaeab5ab-da1e-4d37...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia

SNIP----

> State Guard Association of the United States
> http://www.sgaus.org/states/active-state-forces.asp
>
> Arizona is one of the few states w/o an SDF.

Not sure what you mean here. Arizona has a state militia. Its main
portion of the organized militia is the National Guard of Arizona.

ARS 26-122. Components of militia

A. The militia is divided into the national guard of Arizona, the state
guard when organized, and the unorganized militia.

B. The national guard consists of commissioned officers, warrant
officers, enlisted personnel, organizations, staffs, corps and
departments of the federally recognized and regularly commissioned,
warranted and enlisted militia of the state, organized and maintained
pursuant to law, and all members thereof honorably retired by age or
disability.

C. The numerical strength, composition, distribution, organization, arms,
uniforms, equipment, training and discipline of the federally recognized
national guard shall be prescribed by the governor in conformity with the
allocation of units to the state by the department of the army and the
department of the air force of the United States.

D. The inactive national guard consists of commissioned, warranted and
enlisted personnel relieved from assignment to the national guard by the
adjutant general, or at their own request, under regulations prescribed
by the department of national defense of the United States, and not
reassigned to another component of the armed forces of the United States.

E. The unorganized militia consists of members of the militia not members
of the national guard or state guard when organized.

Plus we have all these wannabes, don't ya' know.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:djkco81ddj808he0u...@4ax.com...

Point. You win.

[GOD LLC]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:47:57 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 18:30:04 -0400, "Scout"
>

> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:kluotn$rsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> >> -
>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> >> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>
>

> >> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:186c808b-3a73-4422...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> On May 2, 12:42 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Outnumbered by whom?
>
> >>>> Outgunned by whom?
>
> >>>> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>
> >>>> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>
> >>>> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>
> >>>> It seems you are outnumbered.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Even assuming all the armed forces people would obey illegal orders
>
> >>
>
> >> "Illegal orders" as defined by who?
>
> >
>
> >The individual soldier.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>instead of their duty to support the constitution. I rather suspect
>
> >>>many would join the side of freedom.
>
> >>
>

> >> I'm sure both sides will claim they are on the side of "freedom" and the
>
> >> Constitution. One of them will be wrong.
>
> >
>

> >Yep, those trying to violate our rights will be the ones that are wrong.
>
> >
>
> >Now, who do you think would be that group?
>
> >
>

> Those who refuse to allow their militias to be well regulated.
>

> You lose, get used to it. The only thing that remains to be seen is
>
> if you survive your insurrection or we pry your gun from you cold dead
>
> hands. Personally I'm looking forward to prying them from your cold
>
> dead hands.

Because you are a lowlife capitalist piece of slave driving shit.

[Scout]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aaeab5ab-da1e-4d37...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

Not entirely true, since the President has direct call upon any and all
portions of the State militia for these purposes.

See 10USC332, 10USC333 and 10USC334

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-15

> Virginia Defense Force
<snip>

> (c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the
> Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the
> Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain
> defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be
> used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or
> commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers
> necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the
> armed forces.

They simply can't be inducted into the Armed Forces such as the National
Guard is.

They exist and retain their identity as a militia force, and the
Constitutional limits that exist for such a force.

ie, those set forth in Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 16

[GOD LLC]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:42:01 PM UTC-4, Fred Brown wrote:
> "Eggs Ackley" <moen...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:210d8c91-4d88-44d9...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted. But that shouldn't
>
> > stop you from sending in your generous gift!
>
> > http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

>
>
>
> Outnumbered by whom?
>
> Outgunned by whom?
>
> U.S. Armed Forces strenght today is about 1,450,000.
>
> Current estimate are that 39-50% of American households
>
> have one or more guns. That's about 100,000,000 people.
>
> It seems you are outnumbered.

Ronald Reagan earned his bullet. So did the Bush Cartel and so did every piece of shit that voted for them.

[GOD LLC]

On the contrary. My boot will be so far up your ass you wont be able to hear anything. Any piece of shit that voted for Bush or Reagan earned their bullets. Bring the War On.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 5, 12:22 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in

While the Arizona Army and Air National Guards are part of the state
military forces they are not "State Guard;" to-wit: State Defense
Forces:

State Defense Forces

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military
reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units
that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are
partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a
part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State defense
forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the
command of the governor of each state.

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in
that they cannot become federal entities (all state National Guard
units can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with
the creation of the National Guard of the United States.) The federal
government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which
provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called,
ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus
preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under
the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force
are not exempt from service in the armed forces. But, under 32 USC §
109(e) "A person may not become a member of a defense force . . . if

he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

>
> ARS 26-122. Components of militia
>
> A. The militia is divided into the national guard of Arizona, the state
> guard when organized, and the unorganized militia.
>
> B. The national guard consists of commissioned officers, warrant
> officers, enlisted personnel, organizations, staffs, corps and
> departments of the federally recognized and regularly commissioned,
> warranted and enlisted militia of the state, organized and maintained
> pursuant to law, and all members thereof honorably retired by age or
> disability.
>
> C. The numerical strength, composition, distribution, organization, arms,
> uniforms, equipment, training and discipline of the federally recognized
> national guard shall be prescribed by the governor in conformity with the
> allocation of units to the state by the department of the army and the
> department of the air force of the United States.
>
> D. The inactive national guard consists of commissioned, warranted and
> enlisted personnel relieved from assignment to the national guard by the
> adjutant general, or at their own request, under regulations prescribed
> by the department of national defense of the United States, and not
> reassigned to another component of the armed forces of the United States.
>
> E. The unorganized militia consists of members of the militia not members
> of the national guard or state guard when organized.
>

Fairly new law; but you missed the _critical_ phrase here: "when
organized;" which means still no AZSDF.

From the Daily Kooks:

We Got Your Assault Weapons Ban Right Here
by DaNang65 for Baja Arizona Kossacks.
[...]
Don't ever think Conservatives aren't creative, or forward looking.
Look carefully at who would be permitted to possess weapons and
equipment otherwise prohibited by the assault weapons ban, should it
pass. "(P)ersons eligible for service in the Arizona State Guard."
That's a pretty remarkable sentence.

"Persons eligible for service," not persons actually serving. In the
Arizona State Guard. Which does, and does not exist.
[...]
Two years ago, in 2011, the Legislature created, but did not fund, the
Arizona State Guard with Gov Jan Brewer signing the legislation. The
Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, took note.
[...]
So the Arizona State Guard is sort of a toothless lion, authorized in
name but unfunded in fact. No employees, no budget, it's mission left
tattered on the State House floor.
[...]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/27/1182509/-We-Got-Your-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Right-Here

See also from 2011:

AZ Gets State Defense Force Law; Now It’s Time to Act
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/29/az-gets-state-defense-force-law-now-its-time-to-act/

And:

Arizona State Defense Foundation
an Arizona not-for-profit Corporation
http://www.azsdf.org/

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:562f429c-ce7d-417b...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Yeah? Some states do have State Defense Forces, many do not. They rely
on state militias of which the main component is the National Guard for
their state.

>> ARS 26-122. Components of militia
>>
>> A. The militia is divided into the national guard of Arizona, the
>> state guard when organized, and the unorganized militia.
>>
>> B. The national guard consists of commissioned officers, warrant
>> officers, enlisted personnel, organizations, staffs, corps and
>> departments of the federally recognized and regularly commissioned,
>> warranted and enlisted militia of the state, organized and maintained
>> pursuant to law, and all members thereof honorably retired by age or
>> disability.
>>
>> C. The numerical strength, composition, distribution, organization,
>> arms, uniforms, equipment, training and discipline of the federally
>> recognized national guard shall be prescribed by the governor in
>> conformity with the allocation of units to the state by the
>> department of the army and the department of the air force of the
>> United States.
>>
>> D. The inactive national guard consists of commissioned, warranted
>> and enlisted personnel relieved from assignment to the national guard
>> by the adjutant general, or at their own request, under regulations
>> prescribed by the department of national defense of the United
>> States, and not reassigned to another component of the armed forces
>> of the United States.
>>
>> E. The unorganized militia consists of members of the militia not
>> members of the national guard or state guard when organized.
>>
> Fairly new law;

Bullshit. Except for some wordings it goes back to territorial days.

but you missed the _critical_ phrase here: "when
> organized;" which means still no AZSDF.

No shit?? Really?? Who is claiming Arizona had one? IOW, you are out
here sputtering around on a point no one is making.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 5, 12:41 pm, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>
> "JohnJohnsn" <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

All well and good, Scout; however, back when I was still in the Texas
Air Guard's Air Mobility Wing Security Force Squadron we were visited
by an AGR member from the NGB for then-up-to-date (2007) in-service
training.

One thing he pointed out was that despite the "disqualifier" contained
within Title 32 USC §109, an SDF_could_POSSIBLY_ be called to active
duty under the DoD's NGB; but it would require a declaration of
_national_ emergency and they still could not be deployed OCONUS (for
the CONUS SDFs). Guess there could be considerations for bringing the
PRSG to the CONUS, or send the CONUS units to the State of Hawai'i;
which like AZ, has a "law":

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 122A-2 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 122A-2: Hawaii
state defense force established.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/10/122A/122A-2

but also has no SDF:

http://dod.hawaii.gov/divisions/

[Scout]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7a515393-8df2-4ab9...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Yep, which is pretty what is set forth in the statutes cited.

> Guess there could be considerations for bringing the
> PRSG to the CONUS, or send the CONUS units to the State of Hawai'i;
> which like AZ, has a "law":
>
> Haw. Rev. Stat. � 122A-2 : Hawaii Statutes - Section 122A-2: Hawaii
> state defense force established.
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/10/122A/122A-2
>
> but also has no SDF:
>
> http://dod.hawaii.gov/divisions/

Well, I hate to tell but according to the statutes I've already cited there
is absolutely NOTHING that states that the President couldn't deploy the
militia from CONUS to OCONUS to places such as Alaska, Hawaii or any of US
territories.

I'm not here to argue the law with you, I'm simply pointing out what it
states.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the law, and statutes that specifically allow
it, declaring that a State Defense Force or any portion thereof can not be
called into federal service under Art 1, Sec 8, cl 16.

[Gray Guest]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:9jabo8hjs30tu6qk1...@4ax.com:

Royal Hussars. Royal Fussiliers. Royal Armoured Corps. There is and was a
lot of Royal in the British Army.lot of

[JohnJohnsn]

In U.S. military parlance, "OCONUS" refers to places _not_ a part of
the United States or its territotries. Now days we refer to it as
"down range" (or in the case of southwest Asia; "the sand box").

One must remember that the Militia Act of 1903 (a/k/a the Dick Act)
came about because of the War Department's calling up the state
National Guard Militia units and sending them outside the U.S. during
the Spanish-American War.

"The Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for
offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
--Attorney General George Wickersham to President William Howard Taft

>
> I'm not here to argue the law with you, I'm simply pointing out what it
> states.
>
> There is absolutely NOTHING in the law, and statutes that specifically
> allow it, declaring that a State Defense Force or any portion thereof can
> not be called into federal service under Art 1, Sec 8, cl 16.
>

Actually, the State Defense Force clause of 32 USC 109 does prohibit
"federalizing" an SDF in subsection (c):

"A [state] defense force established under this section may be used
within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive [the state's
governor via his adjutant general usually] (or commanding general in
the case of the District of Columbia) [a federal enclave w/o a
governor] considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or
drafted into the [federal] armed forces."

The "10 USC §332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal
authority" you referred to earlier refers to calling up the state
National Guard units from their Title 32 state military forces status
to Title 10 Army or Air Force reserve unit status; as does §333 and
§334.

However, as I previously noted, in case of "national emergency" the
POTUS can use his power of "Exdcutive Order" to "call
forth" (quasi-"federalize") a State Guard/State Defense Force to
assist his Title 10 National Guard unit(s) anywhere on U.S. soil (but
not "down range").

Who brought up SDF's in the first place?

[looking back at attributions]

Oh, yes: Leroy Eileen "the Usenet SPAM'er" Baxter:

[Quote] Your "militia" is anti-government. [/Quote] to Scout.

Well; we've kicked his gun control propagandist ass quite well here,
so time to move on. <g> :)

[Scout]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7aff3d84-7138-468f...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Generally, but it's also considered to mean out of continental US....as in
the lower 48 states.

Wasn't sure, so I figured I would clarify so everyone is on the same page.

> One must remember that the Militia Act of 1903 (a/k/a the Dick Act)
> came about because of the War Department's calling up the state
> National Guard Militia units and sending them outside the U.S. during
> the Spanish-American War.
>
> "The Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for
> offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
> --Attorney General George Wickersham to President William Howard Taft

And yet today....it's done as a matter of course.

Heck, remember when training the NG OCONUS was a big issue...now they can
engage in open warfare without so much as a raised eyebrow.

>> I'm not here to argue the law with you, I'm simply pointing out what it
>> states.
>>
>> There is absolutely NOTHING in the law, and statutes that specifically
>> allow it, declaring that a State Defense Force or any portion thereof can
>> not be called into federal service under Art 1, Sec 8, cl 16.
>>
> Actually, the State Defense Force clause of 32 USC 109 does prohibit
> "federalizing" an SDF in subsection (c):
>
> "A [state] defense force established under this section may be used
> within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive [the state's
> governor via his adjutant general usually] (or commanding general in
> the case of the District of Columbia) [a federal enclave w/o a
> governor] considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or
> drafted into the [federal] armed forces."

key words - armed forces.

Remember how armed forces is defined in this Title.

"The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard. "
10USC101


Nothing says they can't be called into federal service AS A MILITIA under
the statutes I cited.

It just means they can't be placed into the military as the NG is.

"he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State"
332

So he can call upon any militia defined by federal statute, or by any State
Constitution or statute which INCLUDES any State Defense Forces since they
are recognized by the States that have them as part of their organized
militia. Thus the President can call them into federal service should the
need arise.

> The "10 USC �332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal
> authority" you referred to earlier refers to calling up the state
> National Guard units from their Title 32 state military forces status
> to Title 10 Army or Air Force reserve unit status; as does �333 and
> �334.
>

No, it refers to ANY portion of the militia of the state.

Let's see how the militia in Virginia is defined.

"44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied
citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in
this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of
the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as
hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia
shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the
Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense
Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. "

Wow, look at that. The Virginia State Defense Force is part of such militia
of the state. Thus it can be called upon, and probably would be immediately
after the NG is called up and more manpower is needed.

> However, as I previously noted, in case of "national emergency" the
> POTUS can use his power of "Exdcutive Order" to "call
> forth" (quasi-"federalize") a State Guard/State Defense Force to
> assist his Title 10 National Guard unit(s) anywhere on U.S. soil (but
> not "down range").

Which is the only point I was trying to make. Some have the idea that the
federal government simply can't call on the State Defense Forces, but they
can given the necessary conditions.

> Who brought up SDF's in the first place?
>
> [looking back at attributions]
>
> Oh, yes: Leroy Eileen "the Usenet SPAM'er" Baxter:
>
> [Quote] Your "militia" is anti-government. [/Quote] to Scout.
>
> Well; we've kicked his gun control propagandist ass quite well here,
> so time to move on. <g> :)

Agreed. Notice how quiet he's suddenly gotten on this?

Anyway, I think we both agree on the big parts even if we could debate the
details more. Interesting, but not really relevant to tpg anymore.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> on or about Sat, 04 May 2013 05:49:22
-0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:19:59 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
>>>afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.
>>
>>The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
>>Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.
>
>Just when there's some hope, you go and prove again how stupid you
>are.

But he does have a point, even if he didn't mean it. The Internet
isn't mentioned in the Constitution either ....

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
about Sat, 4 May 2013 14:21:51 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or

otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>deep wrote in news:15v9o8lmcsee3rprb...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
>>>afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.
>>
>> The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
>> Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.
>

>Hey douchbag! Call the cops on you gun running neighbor yet?

?? Eric Holder lives near Dudu?

[Gray Guest]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in

news:j9feo89aghclqq4ta...@4ax.com:

> Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
> about Sat, 4 May 2013 14:21:51 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
> otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>deep wrote in news:15v9o8lmcsee3rprb...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
>>>>afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.
>>>
>>> The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
>>> Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.
>>
>>Hey douchbag! Call the cops on you gun running neighbor yet?
>
> ?? Eric Holder lives near Dudu?

Chortle. Snort. Good one.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:19:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Let the Record show that Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> on or about Sat, 04 May 2013 05:49:22
>-0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
>talk.politics.guns the following:
>>On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:19:59 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
>>>>afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.
>>>
>>>The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
>>>Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.
>>
>>Just when there's some hope, you go and prove again how stupid you
>>are.
>
> But he does have a point, even if he didn't mean it. The Internet
>isn't mentioned in the Constitution either ....

Neither is Costco Beef Stew. :>

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@yahoo.com> on or about Mon, 06 May 2013 05:49:59

-0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Sun, 05 May 2013 22:19:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Let the Record show that Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> on or about Sat, 04 May 2013 05:49:22
>>-0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
>>talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:19:59 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Which is why the Navy and the Air Force have long standing programs
>>>>>afloat and the Army is funded from Congress to Congress.
>>>>
>>>>The Air Force is unconstitutional. There is no mention of an Air
>>>>Force in the Constitution so we can't have one.
>>>
>>>Just when there's some hope, you go and prove again how stupid you
>>>are.
>>
>> But he does have a point, even if he didn't mean it. The Internet
>>isn't mentioned in the Constitution either ....
>
>Neither is Costco Beef Stew. :>

Hmm .... interesting.