I want your opinion on the purpose of the militia

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Darbdc

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

I do not belong to a militia but support the basic principles of the
militia movement. Liberty, the right to bear arms, a less intrusive
government, and zero tolerance when it comes to rouge federal agencies
with too much firepower.

Please tell me your opinion on the following question:

In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.


Walter Ulrich

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

>>>>

To give The Power Elite a moment or two pause each time it puts its
slimy fingers on the Constitution and Bill of Rights so as to rip another
right to bits and turn it into a privilege.

BTW, those "rouge" [sic] agencies...the FDA approves makeup
doesn't it?

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

"Clinton is sexually threatening to American males."

Ann Rice (Author: Interview With The Vampire)

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

In article <843188585$13...@atype.com>, Darbdc <dar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I do not belong to a militia but support the basic principles of the
>militia movement. Liberty, the right to bear arms, a less intrusive
>government, and zero tolerance when it comes to rouge federal agencies
>with too much firepower.

Those darned rouge federal agencies. The Constitution doesn't say a darn thing
about make-up or cosmetics, so how did we ever let them be created?

H. McDaniel

unread,
Sep 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/22/96
to

dar...@aol.com (Darbdc) writes:


>I do not belong to a militia but support the basic principles of the
>militia movement. Liberty, the right to bear arms, a less intrusive
>government, and zero tolerance when it comes to rouge federal agencies
>with too much firepower.

>Please tell me your opinion on the following question:

>In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.

Keeping in mind that the below is my *personal* opinion:

1. The purpose of the militia movement started as a result of the Ruby
Ridge and Waco, Texas incidents was to warn the federal bureaucracy
that Americans would not be idle while their fundamental rights were
assaulted*

2. A brief agenda of the militia movement:

a.) To reverse the trend of watering down our "Bill of Rights", and;

b.) Recognizing that the federal government continually acts against the
security and freedoms of the American people, it is the enemy in
an undeclared war, one "mistake" shy of starting the American Revolution
part II.


3. There is little agreement on what "mistake" the fed must make to justify
open warfare as most movement supporters (I know) really want to see a
peaceful conclusion and work towards that goal (intially many people
joined only to prevent war, now some outsiders think the aim was to
make war.)

-McDaniel

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Sep 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/23/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:

>
>Those darned rouge federal agencies. The Constitution doesn't say a darn thing
>about make-up or cosmetics, so how did we ever let them be created?

It's the NWO again -- that damned combination of leftism and
internationalism. We're gonna make y'all learn French, too.

Scott

---
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011

I'm paid to have opinions, but only about archaeology.
Anything else, you may safely ignore.

Joseph T. Adams

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

Darbdc (dar...@aol.com) wrote:

: In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.

To defend the life, liberty and property of all Americans from any
threat whatsoever, and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States, of the several States, and laws validly passed under
their authority.

The Militia, properly understood, is not an exclusive club or
organization or private army; it is the entire body of the People.
Informally organized Constitutional Militia groups are not "the"
Militia but are PART of the Militia, and so are all other individuals
who are able and willing to act individually or collectively in the
defense of their families, communities, and country.

Joe

Terry Hicks, PATRIOT

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

Darbdc wrote:
>
> I do not belong to a militia but support the basic principles of the
> militia movement. Liberty, the right to bear arms, a less intrusive
> government, and zero tolerance when it comes to rouge federal agencies
> with too much firepower.
>
> Please tell me your opinion on the following question:
>

> In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.

You just did! What more do you want to know?

Terry Hicks, Patriot!
South Carolina Civilian Militia

Mike S. Medintz

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

Whilst completely naked, Scott wrote:

>It's the NWO again -- that damned combination of leftism and
>internationalism. We're gonna make y'all learn French, too.

French??? That's it, I QUIT!

>Scott

>I'm paid to have opinions, but only about archaeology.
>Anything else, you may safely ignore.

I'm paid too, but I won't say what for. Louis Freeh knows, but he ain't
telling...

--
Mike S. Medintz : Dance in the dark of night,
KB9ODS : sing to the morning moonlight-Led Zeppelin
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz


Scott MacEachern

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Mike S. Medintz) wrote:

>Whilst completely naked, Scott wrote:

Nah, wouldn't want to put my colleagues off their lunches...

>French??? That's it, I QUIT!

What, the militia? Unknown tendencies toward internationalism? A
hidden desire to appear suave and debonair? We may have a convert
here... (Wait'll he finds out that the language of the NWO is really
Chukotko-Kamchatkan...)

Scott


---
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011

I'm paid to have opinions, but only about archaeology.

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

Now Scott:

THAT--- was funny...

[I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!...(for Pitcaveage, I am joking--Scott
can figure out the difference, I think.)

waf-IDAHO
**********************************************

PGISSource

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

In article <843843783$10...@atype.com>, smac...@polar.Bowdoin.EDU (Scott
MacEachern) writes:

>We may have a convert here... (Wait'll he finds out that the language
>of the NWO is really Chukotko-Kamchatkan...)

NO!!!! That can't be ... I'm only barely able to handle simple Spanish
after all these years! You can't change the language, Scott, that wouldn't
be fair.

Mr. Wizard

sheldon sheps

unread,
Sep 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/28/96
to

j...@junior.apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:

>
>Darbdc (dar...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.
>
It is a place for those who do not like the way the present economic
structure is maginilizing at a time when they no longer feel the
normal political processes will pay any attention to them. It is a
place where they talk about how everything would be better if they
could just return to the good old days. Some of these people will
follow their convictions as far as they take them and turn to
violence.

>To defend the life, liberty and property of all Americans from any
>threat whatsoever, and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
>United States, of the several States, and laws validly passed under
>their authority.

Sure. Yeah. So if you're a constitutional militia show me the papers
that prove your officers are appointed by the state as provided for in
incredibly clear language in the constitution.

>
>The Militia, properly understood, is not an exclusive club or
>organization or private army; it is the entire body of the People.
>Informally organized Constitutional Militia groups are not "the"
>Militia but are PART of the Militia, and so are all other individuals
>who are able and willing to act individually or collectively in the
>defense of their families, communities, and country.
>

Standard claptrap. I've come to the conclusion that those who spout
this garbage that the militia are the people are either ignorant,
deluded or find this garbage useful to the cause.


>Joe

Sheldon


--
Sheldon Sheps
jug...@interlog.com
Toronto,Canada

Eric Engelmann

unread,
Sep 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/29/96
to

sheldon sheps wrote:
>
> j...@junior.apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>
> >
> >Darbdc (dar...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> >: In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.
> >
> It is a place for those who do not like the way the present economic
> structure is maginilizing at a time when they no longer feel the
> normal political processes will pay any attention to them. It is a
> place where they talk about how everything would be better if they
> could just return to the good old days. Some of these people will
> follow their convictions as far as they take them and turn to
> violence.

The Beast has been very good to me, so far. A New World Order would
benefit my various businesses tremendously (40% of sales are already
international). Yet, the prospect of living under the total control
of the Beast *doesn't* appeal to me. The minions of the Beast *already*
resort to violence, and have murdered many millions more than the
militia. A militia makes violence unnecessary, in a similar way to
M.A.D.

>
> >To defend the life, liberty and property of all Americans from any
> >threat whatsoever, and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
> >United States, of the several States, and laws validly passed under
> >their authority.
>
> Sure. Yeah. So if you're a constitutional militia show me the papers
> that prove your officers are appointed by the state as provided for in
> incredibly clear language in the constitution.

Are you referring the *the* US Constitution? I can't recall the
Constitution
requiring, in any "clear language," *any* papers from the militia. Is
this
the Canadian Constitution?

>
> >
> >The Militia, properly understood, is not an exclusive club or
> >organization or private army; it is the entire body of the People.
> >Informally organized Constitutional Militia groups are not "the"
> >Militia but are PART of the Militia, and so are all other individuals
> >who are able and willing to act individually or collectively in the
> >defense of their families, communities, and country.
> >
> Standard claptrap. I've come to the conclusion that those who spout
> this garbage that the militia are the people are either ignorant,
> deluded or find this garbage useful to the cause.

Your reply when losing an argument? "Claptrap?" Those who disagree
with you on this are, *OF COURSE* deluded, ignorant, or interested in
"the cause."

> Sheldon Sheps
> jug...@interlog.com
> Toronto,Canada

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Sep 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/29/96
to

Apologies if threading doesn't work in this case; I can at this point
look at articles in DejaNews but can't reply from there -- and it
takes articles about a week to reach this site via Usenet...

Mr. Wizard writes,

>NO!!!! That can't be ... I'm only barely able to handle simple Spanish
>after all these years! You can't change the language, Scott, that wouldn't
>be fair.

Sorry, this is your NWO. We're mean, we're nasty, we can't be trusted
and we speak obscure (is there any other kind?) foreign languages. Any
other questions?

Scott


---
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011

I'm paid to have opinions, but only about archaeology.

Anything else you may safely ignore.

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Sep 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/29/96
to

Speak "obscure"--hey, I get to be "KING"--right?

waffie_IDAHO

*************************************************************8

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/29/96
to

In article <844013916$17...@atype.com>, Eric Engelmann <e...@wdn.com> wrote:


>
>sheldon sheps wrote:
>> Sure. Yeah. So if you're a constitutional militia show me the papers
>> that prove your officers are appointed by the state as provided for in
>> incredibly clear language in the constitution.
>
>Are you referring the *the* US Constitution? I can't recall the
>Constitution
>requiring, in any "clear language," *any* papers from the militia. Is
>this
>the Canadian Constitution?

Officers have commissions; commissions are slips of paper. Only the states
have the power to commission officers in the militia. Not one of these
so-called "constitutional militias" have such commissions.

Read your Constitution.

sheldon sheps

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

Eric Engelmann <e...@wdn.com> wrote:

>
>sheldon sheps wrote:
>>
>> j...@junior.apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Darbdc (dar...@aol.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >: In three sentences or less, describe the purpose of the militia movement.
>> >
>> It is a place for those who do not like the way the present economic
>> structure is maginilizing at a time when they no longer feel the
>> normal political processes will pay any attention to them. It is a
>> place where they talk about how everything would be better if they
>> could just return to the good old days. Some of these people will
>> follow their convictions as far as they take them and turn to
>> violence.
>
>The Beast has been very good to me, so far. A New World Order would
>benefit my various businesses tremendously (40% of sales are already
>international). Yet, the prospect of living under the total control
>of the Beast *doesn't* appeal to me. The minions of the Beast *already*
>resort to violence, and have murdered many millions more than the
>militia. A militia makes violence unnecessary, in a similar way to
>M.A.D.
>

Next thing, you'll be telling me you're the token black in your
militia unit. My statement is a generalization and is probably
generally true.

>>
>> >To defend the life, liberty and property of all Americans from any
>> >threat whatsoever, and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
>> >United States, of the several States, and laws validly passed under
>> >their authority.
>>

>> Sure. Yeah. So if you're a constitutional militia show me the papers
>> that prove your officers are appointed by the state as provided for in
>> incredibly clear language in the constitution.
>
>Are you referring the *the* US Constitution? I can't recall the
>Constitution
>requiring, in any "clear language," *any* papers from the militia. Is
>this
>the Canadian Constitution?

I apologize for not being clear enough.

1. The US Constitution specifies that the officers of the militia are
appointed by the state.

2. When you become an officer in a real army, the issuing office for
your commission will normally give you some paper signifying your
commission (battlefield commission excepted).

3. A real officer in a real militia unit could produce this piece of
paper.

Better?

BTW, the Canadian constitution says nothing about mlitia. I would be
surprised if any other constitution in the world even mentioned the
militia. I would expect the militia would be lumped in with the other
military forces.


>
>>
>> >
>> >The Militia, properly understood, is not an exclusive club or
>> >organization or private army; it is the entire body of the People.
>> >Informally organized Constitutional Militia groups are not "the"
>> >Militia but are PART of the Militia, and so are all other individuals
>> >who are able and willing to act individually or collectively in the
>> >defense of their families, communities, and country.
>> >
>> Standard claptrap. I've come to the conclusion that those who spout
>> this garbage that the militia are the people are either ignorant,
>> deluded or find this garbage useful to the cause.
>
>Your reply when losing an argument? "Claptrap?" Those who disagree
>with you on this are, *OF COURSE* deluded, ignorant, or interested in
>"the cause."

Sorry. But I think it is true. My opinions on this topic have
hardened in the last year.

Writings on the 2nd Amendment have long had an ideological air, and
there can be some legitimate disagreement on its purpose.


But I don't think you can say the same abou writings on the militia.
This 'all the people' stuff is taken from a very few sources who
largely lost the debate about the degree of federal versus state
control over the militia. And that was the debate: state versus
federal control over the militia. The debate was not about
authorizing guys to run around in the woods with guns outside the
control of a government.

In 1787 and later when the militia clause were settled, the states had
experience with laws governing the militia for well over a 100 years.
These laws all recognized that ultimate control over the militia was
by the laws of the colony. During the period of the Articles of
Confederation, every state passed its own laws; and they took special
care to ensure political control of their militia.

Heyyy... maybe I'm slipping back to stage 2.
>
>> Sheldon Sheps
>> jug...@interlog.com
>> Toronto,Canada

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

You're full of shit, Sheps. The inordinate amount of "curiosity" about a
fairly AH'merican phenomenon is extremely suspect. Your motives are
highly suspect, as are your devises.

In the past, in my country, when foreign nationals take an overly zealous
position on AH'merican institutions, groups, folkways, or traditions
there is usually an "enemy" behind the curtain.

I guess that would be someone who by charter--"operates outside the
United State's Terrirorial Boundries"--as an agent or for an agent of a
third country. History has taught me these things.

So...

If you WERE operating in the Continental United States--would you, or
your associates, be subject to arrest and conviction under USC?

Neo-Canadian Marxism "seems" to have attracted a bunch of you guys in the
last 30-40 years.

If you treasure the institutions of the United States so much, move here
and "operate"...eh?

PEACE MAN!
waffie_IDAHO-USA
*******************************************************************

sheldon sheps

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to


Posted and emailed;

waf...@primenet.com wrote:

>
>You're full of shit, Sheps. The inordinate amount of "curiosity" about a
>fairly AH'merican phenomenon is extremely suspect. Your motives are
>highly suspect, as are your devises.

You're spelling my name correctly.

>
>In the past, in my country, when foreign nationals take an overly zealous
>position on AH'merican institutions, groups, folkways, or traditions
>there is usually an "enemy" behind the curtain.

You just gotta stop that tourism. Me, I wouldn't have ever let
Tocqueville in.

>
>I guess that would be someone who by charter--"operates outside the
>United State's Terrirorial Boundries"--as an agent or for an agent of a
>third country.

I gather this is a quote from some law or another. Yup, I am guility
of operating outside the territorial boundaries of the US. However,
there are many Canadians and Americans who regard Canada as the 51st
state, so perhaps I am an honourary American.

History has taught me these things.
>
>So...
>
>If you WERE operating in the Continental United States--would you, or
>your associates, be subject to arrest and conviction under USC?

Caught again. But you found me out. Us Canadian contractors of US
and foreign intelligence agencies are required by s.91(2) of the BNA
Act (now the Canada Act) to 'fess up whenever we're flat out asked.


>
>Neo-Canadian Marxism "seems" to have attracted a bunch of you guys in the
>last 30-40 years.

The scientologists have a bigger political impact than Canadian
Marxism. What's with this Neo-Canadian marxism stuff? Our New
Canadians just want to make a lot of money,have their kids get high
Marxs and move to the states

>
>If you treasure the institutions of the United States so much, move here
>and "operate"...eh?

I can't; I'm not licensed. However, one of my brothers does have the
flex license allowing him to practice medicine in the states. I might
be able to persuade him to take out that device in your head planted
by the NSA that makes you write these things.

Sheldon Sheps
In 1962, Cuban missiles would have been 90 miles from Miami. In 1996,
I'm 45 miles from Rochester.

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

waf...@primenet.com wrote:

>Speak "obscure"--hey, I get to be "KING"--right?
>
>waffie_IDAHO
>

'Fraid not, waffle. After intensive study of your speech patterns,
I've come to the conclusion that you do, indeed, speak English.
(Yeah... it was a surprise to me, too.)

The jargon for your particular mode of speech is an 'idiolect' --
which, I hasten to add, is a purely linguistic term, and not meant to
cast aspersions on your august (or september) mental processes.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

In article <844043708$19...@atype.com>, <waf...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>You're full of shit, Sheps. The inordinate amount of "curiosity" about a
>fairly AH'merican phenomenon is extremely suspect. Your motives are
>highly suspect, as are your devises.
>

>In the past, in my country, when foreign nationals take an overly zealous
>position on AH'merican institutions, groups, folkways, or traditions
>there is usually an "enemy" behind the curtain.

So you are saying that David Evens, who certainly takes an "overly zealous
position" on American etc is an 'enemy' behind the curtain? Please be
specific.

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

Aw com'mon, com'mon...I wanna beeeeeee KING! I wannnnnnnnnnnnnnn-a-be
K-I-N-G!

Hey, no idiopathy [a d'bbl neg] theh! Yeah, all them faux-neems, idiops,
are-gots, and stuff like that are spoken in muh class. Guess that makes
moi a "commoner" in the linguistic sense as well.

Ah, what the Hell. I like being "common." Certain amount of character in
it all. A savage dignity, if one wishes.

[perhaps a prince?--?]

waffie_IDAHO
********************************************************88

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

Evans seems quite capable of speaking for himself. Unlike many, I realize
that this is a screen I am addressing. I also am aware of what it is, or
will be like, to address "real" people in "uncertain" conditions.

I address, heh, the character presented. In yours and Sheps'
cases--asshole characeters. Evans' "character" is inqusititve, and if he
wishes dialogue within that framework, there it is.

PEACE MAN!
waffie_IDAHO
**********************************************888

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>

PGISSource

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

In article <844092196$21...@atype.com>, waf...@primenet.com writes:

>Ah, what the Hell. I like being "common." Certain amount of character in
>it all. A savage dignity, if one wishes.

Mierda, Waf, you're starting to sound either like a traditional Christian
or a Wiccan. Have you been reading too many of my posts? :-)

But your point is true ... the "common" character comes from the soul that
God gave each and every one of us and the knowledge that we acquire as we
journey through life ... be it Biblical or simply liberal love of our
fellow people.

In the end, we all will face the same judgement ... I pray that God,
however we understand him/her, is truly as loving and forgiving of
diversity as I believe. In the meantime, paths may vary ... but with
understanding we all remain brothers and sisters in the pursuit of that
which we honestlty believe we is right.

Mr. Wizard

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

waf...@primenet.com wrote:

>Aw com'mon, com'mon...I wanna beeeeeee KING! I wannnnnnnnnnnnnnn-a-be
>K-I-N-G!

[snip]
>[perhaps a prince?--?]

Sorry, waffle, but I think that that would make you a 'foreign
potentate' -- and you know what sort of trouble that could cause. But
let me talk to my buddies on the Trilateral Commission...

waf...@primenet.com

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

smac...@polar.Bowdoin.EDU (Scott MacEachern) wrote:
>
>waf...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>>Aw com'mon, com'mon...I wanna beeeeeee KING! I wannnnnnnnnnnnnnn-a-be
>>K-I-N-G!
>[snip]
>>[perhaps a prince?--?]
>
>Sorry, waffle, but I think that that would make you a 'foreign
>potentate' -- and you know what sort of trouble that could cause. But
>let me talk to my buddies on the Trilateral Commission...

**************

_____>Waf***>> "Trilateral Commission?" I didn't know you were a weight
lifter.

waffie_IDAHO
************

PGISSource

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <843595388$29...@atype.com>, med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Mike
S. Medintz) writes:

>I'm paid too, but I won't say what for. Louis Freeh knows, but
>he ain't telling...

bummer, dude. And I'm going broke arguing for peaceful resolution? It
seems like only you and Pitcavage are on the "dole" with this one. :-)

Ah, well, at least one of you tries to really learn, so I guess it's worth
it.

Mr. Wizard

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Oct 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/6/96
to

waf...@primenet.com wrote:

>_____>Waf***>> "Trilateral Commission?" I didn't know you were a weight
>lifter.
>

Keeps me in shape for fieldwork -- harder now with a kid to take care
of, of course. But the college here just got a brand new facility..:-)

(And I'm going to love seeing what you do with 'Bildenburgers'...)

Scott MacEachern

unread,
Oct 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/6/96
to

waf...@primenet.com wrote:

>In the past, in my country, when foreign nationals take an overly zealous
>position on AH'merican institutions, groups, folkways, or traditions
>there is usually an "enemy" behind the curtain.

Waffle, when people stop talking about a world-wide 'Pax Americana',
when I can't get CNN and C-SPAN in northern Nigeria anymore, and when
Madonna, Minnie Mouse, Michael Jackson (and all of those other
entertainers whose names begin with 'M'), and Coca-Cola aren't
world-wide cultural commodities, then maybe America can retreat back
into that obscurity that you covet. ('Course, you may have to ditch
all of the Statue of Liberty stuff too...) Until then, people are
interested in all of you. You should bask in it -- you've beaten the
Warhol Rule.

>Neo-Canadian Marxism "seems" to have attracted a bunch of you guys in the
>last 30-40 years.

'Neo-Canadian'! I like it!

Dr. Alexandra Annala

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

dear misc.activism.militia,

relative to the charter of most militia groups, have you even
considered what it would be like to live in a society where
the overwhelming majority of members of the civilian population
(including the police) do not have guns -- and hardly ever see
a gun? think for a moment, most of the argument for organizing
armed civilian resistance groups comes from a desire to oppose
the armed agents of the federal government. perhaps, if we may
consider for a moment finding some way to retreat from cowboy
and indian techniques for settling differences, we might reach
a solution which reduces tensions by eliminating the constant
need for the kind of threats and intimidation implied by guns.

the british held a voluntary effort to get people to turn in
knives which were primarily designed as weapons last year --
the placed a barrel in front of every police station -- and
the british people filled the barrels with knives. this was
in response to the knifing of a single teacher by youth gang.

now, in response to a mass killing of small children in local
schoolyard, there is serious talk about possibly banning all
firearms including even replicas of firearms.

which is better -- passing laws to ban weapons from individual
and government civilian authority possession -- or insisting
on the right to bear arms and to use those arms against perhaps
even more heavily armed (and backed up) federal forces? i am
not going to argue for one position or the other. i just like
to suggest that militia groups consider whether there might be
alternatives (perhaps unthinkable today -- but possibly doable
in the long term) like banning individual and government civil
authority possession of guns.

an american ex-patriot

Terry Hicks, PATRIOT

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

Sir'
When the criminals and the government put all of their guns in
the barrel then, maybe, I'll even consider putting mine in. Not before!

Terry Hicks, PATRIOT!

Bill K.

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

BINGO, Terry.

The good "Doctor" is in a peace-love-brotherhood-trancendental-mediation(no spelling
mistake)-induced stupor. As long as humans have fists and teeth, agression will be part of
the species. Indulging in dreams to the contrary might make interesting poems, or studies
for HCI, but they bear no similarity to reality. As long as there is agression, there will
be the need for defense. As long as force is initiated, it will need to be met with like or
greater force.

What a great logical fallacy: "passing laws to ban weapons...". What exactly will the
enforcers of this law use to enforce it? Harsh language? Like Robin Williams said "STOP!
or I'll yell STOP again!"

Wake up doc.

cheers

Walter Ulrich

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

> "Dr. Alexandra Annala" <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:

[snip]

> consider for a moment finding some way to retreat from cowboy
> and indian techniques for settling differences, we might reach
> a solution which reduces tensions by eliminating the constant
> need for the kind of threats and intimidation implied by guns.

A gun is a tool made of metal, plastic and/or wood. My great-
grandfather owned guns, as did my grandfather, my father, and
so do I. None of us ever killed anyone, nor even shot at anyone.
Guns can be found in at least forty-nine percent of the households
in the United States. If guns had any causal relationship to death
and violence, then hundreds of thousands of Americans, if not
millions, would die each year of gun shot wounds. But only
around 15,000 in fact do, and that includes suicide, deaths
at the hands of law enforcements agents, inter-gang violence,
from those protecting themselves, accidents, and criminals
killing unarmed individuals.


> the british held a voluntary effort to get people to turn in
> knives which were primarily designed as weapons last year --
> the placed a barrel in front of every police station -- and
> the british people filled the barrels with knives. this was
> in response to the knifing of a single teacher by youth gang.

Then the British are silly sheep.



> now, in response to a mass killing of small children in local
> schoolyard, there is serious talk about possibly banning all
> firearms including even replicas of firearms.

Then the British are silly sheep.



> which is better -- passing laws to ban weapons from individual
> and government civilian authority possession -- or insisting
> on the right to bear arms and to use those arms against perhaps
> even more heavily armed (and backed up) federal forces? i am
> not going to argue for one position or the other. i just like
> to suggest that militia groups consider whether there might be
> alternatives (perhaps unthinkable today -- but possibly doable
> in the long term) like banning individual and government civil
> authority possession of guns.

Has the British military disarmed, and why not?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Look, you live in a free country so just shut up, sit down and
watch MTV - You are free to do as we tell you-


Mo10Cav

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

And when I have allowed myself to be disarmed, what then shall I do to
deter the murderer, the rapist, the tyrants and their thugs and tax
collectors? These human specimens have always been a feature of human
society, and I daresay, always will. And what of the criminals? Do you
suppose that firearms cannot be produced in any machine shop in America?
The government will never disarm itself. The criminals will never obey
laws denying them weapons. They are, after all, CRIMINALS. They don't
obey laws. It's what they do. Do you suppose that a society whose
borders are so porous as to allow the cocaine inundation would have a
shortage of imported weapons if there was a profit to be made? So, the
net, practical result of your pipedream would be the total disarmament of
the citizenry in favor of the government and criminals. I think I'll pass
on that one.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, 1 ACR


PGISSource

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

In article <844648388$18...@atype.com>, "Dr. Alexandra Annala"
<ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:

>have you even considered what it would be like to live in a society
>where >the overwhelming majority of members of the civilian population
>(including the police) do not have guns

Probably like living in Britain ... dank and dreary :-)

Seriously and as one of the more raving pacifists here I think you should
consider 3 points:

1. Weapons (including guns) are not magical devices nor do they require a
large complicated infrastructure to create. A person can easily make a
sword, knife, bow, or gun. Effective machetes, short swords, and knives
(and some really nasty crossbows) can be made from car springs, for
instance. As to guns? You don't even need gunpowder for a simple gun,
match heads have been used on a number of occassions. Homemade gunpowder
is equally possible. Mechanisms can be simple and brass cartridges aren't
needed for a repeater ... consider the assorted revolving cap-and-ball
pistols of the last century. Although the caps could be a problem, one
likely could work out a mechanism (several come to mind). It only takes
vaguely more sophistication to get to the level of the Thompson machine
gun. Nothing need go beyond the home work bench in complexity. Given all
that, I think it naive to believe that guns, even if banned world wide,
would ever truly be out of the hands of anyone except the law-abiding,
though they would suffer in quality and thus require larger, more lethal
calibers as in the past. You can't even ban the knowledge ... believe it
or not, you don't even need the internet for the plans since basic guns,
even repeaters, are -really- simple devices. You would virtually have to
destroy all of modern society and technology to eliminate short- and
mid-range firearms.

2. Pacifist as I am, I also recognize there are some that, be it from
simple thievery or their belief that they are "genetically superior," for
various reasons are not interested in peaceful coexistance. Those types of
people can not be negotiated with and have the motivation to unlawfully
manufacture weapons ... especially if the rest of us are unarmed. In fact,
they would just love others to be disarmed since they would then have
supreme power. I know this may come as a shock, but some human beings are
still quite capable of behaving like savages and seeking out and applying
force over those they can. Someone, then, must be armed in order to ensure
protection from such folks.

3. So given #1 and #2, at least the government would need to be armed, as
they are also finding the need to be armed in Britain. And that brings us
full circle back to the same problem the militias are debating, doesn't
it? Should we arm only the government? Or could that lead to abuse by
government itself, also?

This is not a macho-by-proxy, "cowboy-and-indian," or a "boys and their,
uh, toys" issue. This is a real problem that requires real answers. Like
you, I enjoy the dream of a utopic world. But I don't see it happening
from absolute disarmament any more than I do from the total armament and
shoot-the-offender solution proposed by some libertarians. Such solutions
are just too simplistic.

Mr. Wizard

Stiv

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

Dr. Alexandra Annala <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> wrote in article
<844648388$18...@atype.com>...
>
> dear misc.activism.militia,
>
> relative to the charter of most militia groups, have you even


> considered what it would be like to live in a society where
> the overwhelming majority of members of the civilian population

> (including the police) do not have guns -- and hardly ever see
> a gun?
>

> (snipped)
>
>>Yeah, I've thought about it. It's stupid! COMPLETELY STUPID! If the
people of the U.S.A. are denied their rights to defend themselves from
tyrannical governments who will bail your ass out the next time it happens
to you! Or haven't you noticed that you can't defend yourself from those in
your country who do have the guns? What if all the people in the U.S.A who
have family and other ties to England were unable to assist you and
couldn't even provide a threat to your oppressors because they were
unarmed. You see the U.S. government (who no longer has to care all that
much about retaliation of her own people) decide they want to help those
that are oppressing you because it's best for the "New World Order" or for
the "environment" or whatever the latest crap is. Have you ever thought
about how helpless you are? Have you not paid attention to the slaughter of
millions upon millions of people who have shared your point of view? You
better hope and pray that we won't allow our government to take our guns.
Where you have no choice at least we still do.

>>Sleep tight,
>>>Stiv

Edward W. Gardner

unread,
Oct 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/9/96
to

On Mon, 7 Oct 96 0:33:08 GMT, Dr. Alexandra Annala
(ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk) wrote:

[a lot of really silly drival]


Look Doc,

Its not a matter of "guns". Murder and aggresion have been around since
Cain slew Abel. Guns are simply a response to the ever increasing level of
threat by the criminal elements of society, be they street gangs or
government agents. Murder and aggresion will not be eliminated by the
removal of any type of weapon. Period.

Ed

Bucks72

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to

I'm not really responding to your newsgroup thing. I'm just trying to
contact someone who can give me real information about the philosophy of
the militia movement. I'm real interested, but I live in yuppyville USA
where I can't find a clue about alternative media sources or militias or
anything. I'm starving for info. If you could hook me up with the militia
culture, I'd be pretty darn grateful. I'm a highschooler and don't want to
be brainwashed by the school system. PLEASE RESPOND. THANKS.,

Billy Beck

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to


"Dr. Alexandra Annala" <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

>dear misc.activism.militia,

>relative to the charter of most militia groups, have you even
>considered what it would be like to live in a society where
>the overwhelming majority of members of the civilian population
>(including the police) do not have guns -- and hardly ever see
>a gun?

Yes. Personally, I have considered such a thing.

As an inveterate gear-head and ardent admirer of precision engineering
and other things keenly mechanical, I say such a society would be so
much the more boring.

I enjoy them, you see. In fact, I'm particularly taken with my
recently acquired Beretta 92 Compact L (import). Italian
craftsmanship is really quite remarkable, wouldn't you agree?

(sigh)

All I want is the best of everything, and there is so little of that.


Happy to help.


Billy

"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html


Walter Ulrich

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to

> wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) writes:

[snip]



> As an inveterate gear-head and ardent admirer of precision engineering
> and other things keenly mechanical, I say such a society would be so
> much the more boring.

> I enjoy them, you see. In fact, I'm particularly taken with my
> recently acquired Beretta 92 Compact L (import). Italian
> craftsmanship is really quite remarkable, wouldn't you agree?

>>>>

"There's nothing more beautiful than a good gun, except maybe
a Swiss watch or a woman form anywhere." (Dialogue from a
'30s western)

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

gunrunner

unread,
Oct 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/13/96
to

PGISSource wrote:
>
> In article <844648388$18...@atype.com>, "Dr. Alexandra Annala"
> <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>

> >have you even considered what it would be like to live in a society
> >where >the overwhelming majority of members of the civilian population
> >(including the police) do not have guns

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

There are two types of people on Earth. One type believes that Man is
basically evil, stupid, ignorant, foolish, dangerous, due to the fact
that he has no "soul" and is simply a product of the environment, and
really needs someone (like "the government") to help, guide, protect and
make everyone be fair to them.

The second type believes that Man, being a true spiritual being and
having a "soul" is basically good; that Man can (and does) achieve great
things without the help (or hinderance) of any government; that Man is
responsibil for his actions and should recieve either the benifits or
punishments concerning them. These are true "enlightened" ones!

One type blames inanimate objects for the evil men do, while the smarter
type blames the individual man for his own actions.

"WHITE SHALL NOT NEUTRALIZE THE BLACK, NOR GOOD COMPENSATE BAD IN MAN,
ABSOLVE HIM SO: LIFE'S BUSINESS BEING JUST THE TERRIBLE CHOICE"
_----Robert Browning

Come visit me at http://www.earthlink.net/~gunrunner

Ian Miller

unread,
Oct 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/13/96
to

In article <844681702$19...@atype.com>,
e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
[snip...]


>> "Dr. Alexandra Annala" <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:

>> now, in response to a mass killing of small children in local
>> schoolyard, there is serious talk about possibly banning all
>> firearms including even replicas of firearms.
>
>Then the British are silly sheep.

I think you are mistaking British reserve for lack of feeling.
There is nothing weak, submissive or deferential about the British
feeling on this subject. It is a raw hatred of anyone who dares
bring deadly weapons to our peaceful country. This is not something
that our government forces on us, but something that public opinion
is forcing on the government. It is a true democratic decision.

[snip...]


>
>Has the British military disarmed, and why not?

The British military is armed to deal with foreigners. Just as
we have a few specialist armed police units to deal with armed
criminals. The British have no objection to firearms in the
appropriate place (i.e. in the hands of a very few, very well
trained experts or abroad). Hence the USA is welcome to its
weapons and its murder rate. That is America's choice. We don't want them
here. That is our choice.

Ian


Ian_M...@bifroest.demon.co.uk FAI-D10204
PGP key 1024/FCE97719 FP: 2A 20 46 10 E5 96 27 40 91 B1 95 BA CA D3 BC 14
Antworten auf Deutsch waeren mir angenehm.

Charles Winters

unread,
Oct 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/13/96
to

Dear Bucks: Just read on and join in the fun here. Contrary to what you might
think, many if not most of us live in Yuppieville, just like you. The militia is, at
its heart, just the armed populace of the US. True, there are some yuppie types and
blue collar types who perfer to join volunteer militia units and train on weekends
and at Summer camp. But, most of us are just ordinary working stiffs who keep a
service rifle and 100 rounds of ammo ready at all times to defend our families and
communities. Myself, I limit my training to monthly excursions to the local rifle
range.

In summary, if you are an able bodied legal resident of the US over the age of 16,
you are a member of the militia even though you don't realize it yet. In an
emergency, you can count on being called to service, perhaps even to arms. The best
you can do is be ready, emotionally and physically. When you come of age, buy a
military rifle and practice with it regularly. - CW

sheldon sheps

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

Charles Winters <ch...@blarg.net> wrote:

>
>Bucks72 wrote:
>>
>> I'm not really responding to your newsgroup thing. I'm just trying to
>> contact someone who can give me real information about the philosophy of
>> the militia movement. I'm real interested, but I live in yuppyville USA
>> where I can't find a clue about alternative media sources or militias or
>> anything. I'm starving for info. If you could hook me up with the militia
>> culture, I'd be pretty darn grateful. I'm a highschooler and don't want to
>> be brainwashed by the school system. PLEASE RESPOND. THANKS.,
>
>Dear Bucks: Just read on and join in the fun here. Contrary to what you might
>think, many if not most of us live in Yuppieville, just like you. The militia is, at
>its heart, just the armed populace of the US. True, there are some yuppie types and
>blue collar types who perfer to join volunteer militia units and train on weekends
>and at Summer camp. But, most of us are just ordinary working stiffs who keep a
>service rifle and 100 rounds of ammo ready at all times to defend our families and
>communities. Myself, I limit my training to monthly excursions to the local rifle
>range.
>
>In summary, if you are an able bodied legal resident of the US over the age of 16,
>you are a member of the militia even though you don't realize it yet

Tsk, Tsk... If you're going to play the statute game you have to play
it fairly. You've left out male and under the age of 45 and a bunch
of other exemptions.

Remember, no women in the militia.


>In an
>emergency, you can count on being called to service, perhaps even to arms.

Care to guess the first time the unorganized militia has been called
out since the federal law was passed in 1903?

> The best
>you can do is be ready, emotionally and physically. When you come of age, buy a
>military rifle and practice with it regularly. - CW

Sheldon
--
Sheldon Sheps
Toronto
Militia - History and Law FAQ
http://www.sff.net/people/pitman/militia.htm

Joseph T. Adams

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to


Ian Miller (Ian_M...@bifroest.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: There is nothing weak, submissive or deferential about the British


: feeling on this subject. It is a raw hatred of anyone who dares
: bring deadly weapons to our peaceful country.

You are within your rights to hate anyone you choose, but it is very
bad for you.

You are NOT within your rights to steal the property of others.

Americans are mostly peaceful people. We don't screw with other
people, so long as they do not screw with us.

However, if you fuck with us, we will resist, and if you continue to
fuck with us or if we even THINK you may do irreparable harm by your
illegal actions, then we will kill you.

Ironically, the ONLY reason I would ever use my weapons is if someone
tried to take them from me, or to harm those around me in some other
way. But if they do, they will die, and rightly so.


: This is not something


: that our government forces on us, but something that public opinion
: is forcing on the government. It is a true democratic decision.

In your "democracy" it is considered OK for a majority to violate the
rights of a minority.

In our Republic, it is not.


: The British military is armed to deal with foreigners. Just as


: we have a few specialist armed police units to deal with armed
: criminals. The British have no objection to firearms in the
: appropriate place (i.e. in the hands of a very few, very well
: trained experts or abroad). Hence the USA is welcome to its
: weapons and its murder rate. That is America's choice. We don't want them
: here. That is our choice.

Non sequitur. Virtually all murders and other violent crimes in
America happen in the cities with gun bans. The rest of the U.S. has
very low crime rates, although they are increasing as our "government"
tries to disarm more and more people elsewhere.

Our "government" armed and trained the criminals, as is now fairly
well known, and it now expects those of us who are law-abiding and
honest to turn in our weapons so that the criminals can have free
reign over us.

Fuck that.

Peace rightfully belongs to those who are willing to defend it.
Cowards who are unwilling to defend it will become slaves, and will
receive little or no sympathy from me.

Perhaps you mean well. Perhaps you really believe that peace comes
from the absence of weapons. I will give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume that you are just breathtakingly ignorant, and not evil.

However, anyone who tries to disarm Americans - which is contrary to
our law, and most importantly, God's law - may lawfully be shot on
sight. It matters not in the least whether they act out of stupidity
on the one hand, or lust for power on the other. They threaten not
only our own personal survival, but the survival of our nation.
Ironically, they also threaten our ability to defend other nations
such as yours which, though perfectly able to defend themselves, are
unwilling to do so because they are filled with ignorant pacifists
with no understanding of human nature.

I am sorry to be so blunt. But your attitude is very callous and
offensive. You imply that those of us who support liberty (including
the right to self-defense, which is probably THE most important right
we have, and also the one under the most vicious attack) are therefore
opposed to peace. Far from it. We are working hard to RESTORE peace
to this country. We know that true peace comes only when those who
love peace are able and willing to defend it. Your implication to the
contrary is not only offensive, but as wrong as anything could
possibly be.


Joe

Walter Ulrich

unread,
Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

> Ian Miller <Ian_M...@bifroest.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <844681702$19...@atype.com>,
> e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
> [snip...]
> >> "Dr. Alexandra Annala" <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> >> now, in response to a mass killing of small children in local
> >> schoolyard, there is serious talk about possibly banning all
> >> firearms including even replicas of firearms.

> >Then the British are silly sheep.

> I think you are mistaking British reserve for lack of feeling.

> There is nothing weak, submissive or deferential about the British
> feeling on this subject. It is a raw hatred of anyone who dares

> bring deadly weapons to our peaceful country. This is not something


> that our government forces on us, but something that public opinion
> is forcing on the government. It is a true democratic decision.

I repeat: Then the British are silly sheep.

You are fixated on >one< tool amongst thousands of potentially
"deadly weapons". That demonstrates your inability to think.

> >Has the British military disarmed, and why not?

> The British military is armed to deal with foreigners. Just as
> we have a few specialist armed police units to deal with armed
> criminals. The British have no objection to firearms in the
> appropriate place (i.e. in the hands of a very few, very well
> trained experts or abroad). Hence the USA is welcome to its
> weapons and its murder rate. That is America's choice. We don't want them
> here. That is our choice.

And Britain is welcome to its IRA explosions. How come the IRA
continues to blow-up buildings in Britain? It's against the law, isn't it??

God I'm glad we kicked your sorry asses out of North America....
no, wait, there's Canada...and they're baaing too. "Disarm me,
disarm me, baa baa baa!"

You equate stupidity and silliness with sanity. Go fight WWIII by
your disarmed weak willie selves, limey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill K.

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Ian Miller wrote:
>
> In article <844681702$19...@atype.com>,
> e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
> [snip...]
> >> "Dr. Alexandra Annala" <ann...@camelot.mcbl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> >> now, in response to a mass killing of small children in local
> >> schoolyard, there is serious talk about possibly banning all
> >> firearms including even replicas of firearms.
> >
> >Then the British are silly sheep.
>
> I think you are mistaking British reserve for lack of feeling.
> There is nothing weak, submissive or deferential about the British
> feeling on this subject. It is a raw hatred of anyone who dares
> bring deadly weapons to our peaceful country. This is not something
> that our government forces on us, but something that public opinion
> is forcing on the government. It is a true democratic decision.
>

> [snip...]


> >
> >Has the British military disarmed, and why not?
>
> The British military is armed to deal with foreigners. Just as
> we have a few specialist armed police units to deal with armed
> criminals. The British have no objection to firearms in the
> appropriate place (i.e. in the hands of a very few, very well
> trained experts or abroad). Hence the USA is welcome to its
> weapons and its murder rate. That is America's choice. We don't want them
> here. That is our choice.
>

> Ian

No, Ian, its not your choice. Its your government's choice which you are
forced to live by. If Britain had very liberal gun laws (as in "very few restrictions"),
and the British people *chose* to be unarmed anyway, you would be correct.
But you have no choice in the matter. The decision has been made for you.
You may be stating the truth as to your countrymen's attitude, or you may be rationalizing your
government's overbearing nanny laws. You aren't given the chance to prove it either way.

As it is, you sound more like a prisoner identifying with his guard.

--
=======================================================================
A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden,
and the sheep are armed.
Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled
into voting for a Democracy...
Democrats and Republicans: sheep who think they are wolves.
--me

Usenet is so big, and I'm so small.
email me if I should actually read your words.
=======================================================================

Billy Beck

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:

>> wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) writes:

>[snip]
>
>> As an inveterate gear-head and ardent admirer of precision engineering
>> and other things keenly mechanical, I say such a society would be so
>> much the more boring.
>
>> I enjoy them, you see. In fact, I'm particularly taken with my
>> recently acquired Beretta 92 Compact L (import). Italian
>> craftsmanship is really quite remarkable, wouldn't you agree?

>>>>>

>"There's nothing more beautiful than a good gun, except maybe
>a Swiss watch or a woman form anywhere." (Dialogue from a
>'30s western)

Right on. I would add Harley-Davidsons but, so far as I know, nobody
has suggested banning them yet. Of course, we're early on. There's
time.

In any case, you're fingering the *ethical* essence of this whole
sorry-ass quiver from the UK. We're talking about *values*: which
ones people hold, and why. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder",
and in a *free* culture, people get to pursue their values. Now, it
is a metaphysically given *fact* of *reality* that only individuals
value. Me? I value a nice gun. That's all there is to it, and
nobody else has *shit* to say about it. I behave myself behind it: I
exchange my hard-earned dollars for them, and I handle them
responsibly. Nobody has any complaint about my guns.

...unless they assume that I'm an evil man.

...at which point they are invited to *prove* it at law, with a bill
of particulars listing the harms that I have brought against *anyone*.

Until then, they get to shut up leave me alone.


Billy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMmXCONuwrgv4K10xAQEeQAP6AuA1ED62pyLzo8Gw837IUiOe22v6x0o7
wxpD2Ne49OgJqZxSh3Awup3GB0wUgkGKt4rJOOItNSfHamFounO7TJPPIsaNgLPB
LQ+8Pn2JOQQERHADifrq3zXOEAdJ6zhwYch0qMiBUQGAQItM61ZxlSpT+bxeMme0
QOJSuExmgSM=
=thSK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html


Charles Winters

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Dear Mr. Sheps: In my neighborhood, we operate from natural law. In an emergency,
men, women, boys and girls are expected to help out in an emergency, except for those
who need to stay behind and care for the children and elderly. USC Title 10 may call
for only men of a certain age, but in practice the militia is all the people who are
able to respond, even to fight if necessary. I would cite the examples of the recent
LA riots, Hurricane Andrew, the great floods of the Mississippi/Misouri river basin
and many other emergency situations where natural law took precedence over federal
law. In fact most of my neighbors are completely unaware of the federal law on
the statutory militia yet have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to band
together to help or defend each other without any distinction whatsoever other than
fitness and availability. It's the American way. - CW

sheldon sheps

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to


Charles Winters <ch...@blarg.net> wrote:

>
>sheldon sheps wrote:
>>
>> Charles Winters <ch...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bucks72 wrote:
>> >>

[snip]

>Dear Mr. Sheps: In my neighborhood, we operate from natural law. In an emergency,
>men, women, boys and girls are expected to help out in an emergency, except for those
>who need to stay behind and care for the children and elderly.


> USC Title 10 may call
>for only men of a certain age, but in practice the militia is all the people who are
>able to respond, even to fight if necessary.

Outside of the weirdness of the United States constitutional/statutory
law morass, everyone understands that a militia is one way of
organizing people to fight. It is a military organization. Only
incidently and because of its ORGANIZATION has it been used for civil
emergencies.

> I would cite the examples of the recent
>LA riots, Hurricane Andrew, the great floods of the Mississippi/Misouri river basin
>and many other emergency situations where natural law took precedence over federal
>law. In fact most of my neighbors are completely unaware of the federal law on
>the statutory militia yet have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to band
>together to help or defend each other without any distinction whatsoever other than
>fitness and availability. It's the American way. - CW

It is not the American way, it is the way people all over the world
often react. In a disaster, an organized group because of their
organization can be more useful than random bunch of individuals.
This includes that oxymoron; organized unorganized militia groups. But
it also includes the Rotary Club and the Boy Scouts.

The main purpose and intent of organized unorganized militia groups
is not to help in civil emergencies. There are dozens of local and
national organizations that do a much better job. In a disaster, local
authorities may refuse the help of 'militia' units.

I just don't see how natural law helps you with regard to the militia.

Sheldon
Posted and Emailed.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages