FBI THREATENS LEGAL MILITIAS - MICHIGAN NEAR CIVIL WAR
W. E. Woods
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> Just what, may I ask, is a "legal" militia?
Well, first there is the entire body of armed citizens. Then you have
things like state militias, county, state, and local organizations,
clubs, groups, and loosely knit associations, sponsored groups, and each
armed individual. For example, the county SAR group I used to work with
is a militia. The Cattleman's Association Patrol is a militia. The folks
in my neighborhood are a militia. A volunteer fire department or
neighborhood watch is just a different aspect of the militia.
> Call them
> private armies and you'll be closer to the mark.
Nope. A private army is one that is hired by a group, individual, or
company. See mercenaries. See corporate security.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
HWmCole
lot of you.
Was that "The war is coming" or "The sky is falling"? Just checking...
>Subject: Re:
FBI THREATENS LEGAL MILITIAS - MICHIGAN NEAR CIVIL WAR
>From: "W. E. Woods" wew...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Fri, 29 October 1999 04:34 PM EDT
bad...@uswest.net
"W. E. Woods" wrote:
>
> bad...@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > Just what, may I ask, is a "legal" militia?
>
> Well, first there is the entire body of armed citizens. Then you have
> things like state militias, county, state, and local organizations,
> clubs, groups, and loosely knit associations, sponsored groups, and each
> armed individual. For example, the county SAR group I used to work with
> is a militia. The Cattleman's Association Patrol is a militia. The folks
> in my neighborhood are a militia. A volunteer fire department or
> neighborhood watch is just a different aspect of the militia.
>
You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
the "militia"
groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
time.
> > Call them
> > private armies and you'll be closer to the mark.
>
> Nope. A private army is one that is hired by a group, individual, or
> company. See mercenaries. See corporate security.
You don't have to pay them in money. They get their pay by
being part of an organization that lets them carry guns and
spout political diatribes at the same time. That's their
payment. They can be part of an organization that caters to
disgruntled losers.
Lawrence R. Glickman
news:381c6f58....@news.thegrid.net...
Indeed a fully armed populace is the check and balance against Government
becoming Tyrannical. The second the people are disarmed, this country,
_by_definition_ becomes a Police State.
I have read a lot about trouble being expected in Jerusalem. As far as the
Federal Bureau of Investigation is concerned, they have good reason to be
concerned. There _are_ groups of people who see the Millennium as the
*signal* that the end of the world is at hand. And those group's actions
based on that belief are anticipated to be violent in nature.
Perhaps we will witness mass suicides by certain sects. And maybe attacks
on Government installations. These are real possibilities. Very real.
Expected, you might say.
I will bet everything I own ( well, tain't much but it's all I have ) that
the turn of the Millennium will not go peacefully. As a sidenote, the FBI
is expected to release their findings to the public. Maybe. The reason
they would WANT to release their prognostications to the public would be to
justify and legitimize whatever paramilitary and military intervention that
may follow.
No, I don't belong to a Militia either. But I'm _damn_ glad_ that they're
out there. What they can do, in realistic terms, against an armed force
that makes their firepower pale in comparison, is debatable. But the
collective will of the ordinary citizen on the street, who is armed and
trained in the use of his weaponry, will no doubt preclude any kind of
permanent martial law.
It's not the militias the FBI needs to be concerned about, it's the 250
million of us that _don't_ belong to a militia.
L
g
LG
George T. Kramer
One is truly dismayed that you are so terribly misinformed and/or gullible
to anti-gun propaganda.
>> You write: "You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All the "militia"
groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or the Michigan
Militia) are just looking for an excuse to carry guns and spout off
political rhetoric at the same time."
The National Guard has not replaced the militia. Period. The National Guard
is merely a smaller, more-organized part of the militia, and when
federalized for combat duty by the U.S. government, ceases to be part of the
militia at all because at that point they become paid federal soldiers. Look
it up for yourself. U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311 makes it all perfectly
clear. The National Guard makes up the "organized" militia, while every
able-bodied, law-abiding U.S. male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45,
who is not already part of the military or National Guard, makes up the
"unorganized" militia. It all there is plain black-and-white print.
U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311 simply codifies that which is (and has been)
already known in that the militia is made up of the private citizens of the
United States. Up until sixty years ago, it was the militia (and not the
standing military) that guarded America. Only after World War II did the
United States begin the ill-conceived practice of maintaining a large and
powerful standing military. Because the militia is made up of ordinary
private citizens, organizations such as the Montana Militia and the Michigan
Militia are, themselves, not the militia. Instead, they are simply more
organized and more readily identifiable groups that make up the militia.
With the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA), these groups need no excuse to
"carry guns". In fact, nobody needs an "excuse". Under the protection of the
First Amendment, they can spout off any political rhetoric they so desire,
just as you and I do.
Because the militia is made up of ordinary prrivate citizens, Mr. Woods is
quite correct in asserting that those organizations he lists are part of the
militia. Of course they are. They are what is left of the remnant of how
order and safety was maintained within the United States up until sixty
years ago, after which the tradition waned under the evergrowing presence of
federalism. This is a most unfortunate thing because many people now believe
they can abdicate their personal responsibilities and civic duties, relying
completely upon a government institution that they can no longer control!
>> You complain: "They can be part of an organization that caters to
disgruntled losers."
The militia is far larger and far, far more potent than you think. There are
well over 80 million gun owners in this country that keep well over 120
million firearms. Some estimates put the number of guns in circulation
nearer to 180 million. Who know? The federal government doesn't. Registering
firearms is but a very recent and novel notion and the vast majority of gun
owners and the weapons the keep and bear is compelely unknown. This is part
of what makes them so potent and why gun confiscation is impossible for the
time being. It is also why the Second Amendment still has teeth and why is
still performs as intended by the Founding Fathers. Of course, King George
III called them "disgruntled losers", also - at least up until the Battle of
Yorktown...
Cordially,
George T. Kramer
"Don't Tread On Me!"
W. E. Woods
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
> >
> > bad...@uswest.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Just what, may I ask, is a "legal" militia?
> >
> > Well, first there is the entire body of armed citizens. Then you have
> > things like state militias, county, state, and local organizations,
> > clubs, groups, and loosely knit associations, sponsored groups, and each
> > armed individual. For example, the county SAR group I used to work with
> > is a militia. The Cattleman's Association Patrol is a militia. The folks
> > in my neighborhood are a militia. A volunteer fire department or
> > neighborhood watch is just a different aspect of the militia.
> >
>
> You expect me to believe this nonsense?
I really don't give a rats ass if you choose to be ignorant of the
facts.
> PULEEZ, give me a break.
Give me a reason why I should.
> The National Guard has replaced the "militia".
Utter nonsense. Kindly show where the Constitution has been amended to
that effect.
> All
> the "militia"
> groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
> the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
> carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
> time.
That's your opinion, and your opinion isn't worth much given your lack
of either facts or veracity.
> > > Call them
> > > private armies and you'll be closer to the mark.
> >
> > Nope. A private army is one that is hired by a group, individual, or
> > company. See mercenaries. See corporate security.
<nonsense snipped>
Homesteader
http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+150+0++%2
8%29%20%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20
%28311%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
George T. Kramer <geo...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:7vj1eq$3qc$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Hello "BadDog".
>
> One is truly dismayed that you are so terribly misinformed and/or gullible
> to anti-gun propaganda.
>
> >> You write: "You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
> break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All the "militia"
> groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or the Michigan
> Militia) are just looking for an excuse to carry guns and spout off
> political rhetoric at the same time."
>
Michael Shirley
bad...@uswest.net wrote in message <381C5D0E...@uswest.net>...
>
>
>"W. E. Woods" wrote:
>>
>> bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>> >
>> > Just what, may I ask, is a "legal" militia?
>>
>> Well, first there is the entire body of armed citizens. Then you have
>> things like state militias, county, state, and local organizations,
>> clubs, groups, and loosely knit associations, sponsored groups, and each
>> armed individual. For example, the county SAR group I used to work with
>> is a militia. The Cattleman's Association Patrol is a militia. The folks
>> in my neighborhood are a militia. A volunteer fire department or
>> neighborhood watch is just a different aspect of the militia.
>>
>
>break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
>the "militia"
>groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
>the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
>carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
>time.
>> > private armies and you'll be closer to the mark.
Dead wrong. First off, the National Guard was created by the
Dick Act in around 1910 if memory serves. And the US Supreme
Court has ruled that it's not a milita and especially not a state
milita in Department of Defense vs Perpich. It held that the National
Guard is a Federal military reserve with command delegated to
the governors of the various states during peacetime. Compare
that with say, Mr. Madison's commentaries in The Federalist, No.
42 and one gets an entirely different view. You can also look at
USC Title 10 Section 311 which also puts a different light on
things.
>>
>> Nope. A private army is one that is hired by a group, individual, or
>> company. See mercenaries. See corporate security.
>
>You don't have to pay them in money. They get their pay by
>being part of an organization that lets them carry guns and
>spout political diatribes at the same time. That's their
>payment. They can be part of an organization that caters to
>disgruntled losers.
Nice rhetoric but at odds with the facts. Mercenaries are troops
which are organized and hired out by their captain to various
governments. Auxilliaries are troops which are hired out by
their governments to other governments. A private Army
would still have to answer to a political or hiring authority and
organizations like the Michigan Milita don't.
What they actually are, are armed Grainger parties not much
different from the National Grainge of the 1880's, except that these
affect uniforms and weapons. They aren't militarily relevant because
while well armed they lack an industrial or other base of support, and
possess no logistics, which means that they're one shot affairs. All
teeth and no tail means no endurance and these haven't got any.
But they're not paid and calling them mercs is a rather lame effort
to reach for pejoratives which are at odds with the truth.
As far as being a private army, (albeit badly organized, improperly
equipped and utterly penetrated by Federal informants) that is an
inaccurate description, and you've utterly ignored a point in your efforts
to
paint them pejoratively. They're not mercenaries, but rather adherents
of a culture that is being marginalized and attacked by the predominant
media driven culture here. As such, if you really want a historical analogy,
think more in terms of the Cao Dai sect of Vietnam from the 30's until
well into the 60's, which armed in order to protect itself from attack by
the predominant Buddhist culture in Vietnam. Or you can look to Haganah
or it's predecessor Hashomer in Palestine before the 48 war in which they
had to organize and arm in order to protect themselves against Arab
gangs. A self defense force consisting of a body of the whole is a
better definition, although they do bear some similarity to the old Boer
Commandos before the Boer War.
And their rise was utterly predictable. Why? First off, the core belief
of these groups is that the Feds acting as the agent from what is
essentially an urban eastern collectivist culture, intends to deprive them
of their rights under the Second Amendment as well as their cultural
identity.
Of all of the rights to attack, the rights under the Second are the
absolute
worst to go after. Why?
Very few people worry about the First Amendment because they've
nothing to say of any consequence. The concerns in the Third changed
when modern surveillence technology invalidated the quartering of troops
in homes as a surveillence mechanism, so those concerns are better
addressed under the Fourth. The Fourth isn' t of much interest to most
because they don't commit crimes and therefore don't expect the police
to knock at their doors, and so on.
But the Second deals with the ownership of a physical object. One can
hold one's rifle or pistol in their hand. One knows were it is, and if it's
gone, that knowledge is there too. And threats of confiscation when the
owner has committed no crime are both invasive and outrageous. It's
not just an object, but the physical manifestation of a right. The
implications
of a confiscation of these is enormous.
And given such hijinks such as say, HR-4079 from the 101st Congress,
(Written by Bill Bennet's staff with assistance from Ollie North and WIlliam
Guiffreda,
which would have established a state of emergency, concentration camps
euphemistically called "tent cities" and an end to the right of Habeus
Corpus among other things-- look it up and read it for yourself), the
murders committed at Ruby Ridge and Waco with no accountability by those who
committed them and similar activities, ownership of weapons as a hedge
against an uncertain and hostile future becomes an imperative.
It's human nature to organize in the face of threats and they did. And
that's
perfectly understandible. Most human behavior in the end, is threat
generated.
When you create a threat, it's insane to expect people to not respond to it.
Calling them "disgruntled losers" is rather reminiscent of what Julius
Streicher used to call the Jews in Nazi Germany, so with attitudes like that
around, I'd be hard put to tell them not to arm either. It is a culture war
and your utterances underscore the point.
W. E. Woods
Drew Stowers wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:46:17 GMT, rstu...@calwest.net (Robert
> Sturgeon) wrote:
>
> >>You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
> >>break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia".
> >
> >I don't think so. The National Guard is a weird hybrid organization
> >under state control except when it's under Federal control, paid
> >mostly by the Feds, and in no way fulfilling a role at all similar to
> >the role previously fulfilled by the state militias. And besides, we
> >have that whole "unorganized militia" thing- consisting of the male
> >population (of some age group, which escapes me just now) NOT in the
> >regular armed forces. As a result, the only true militia left is the
> >armed non-governmental population. One might conceivably add in such
> >groups as sheriff's volunteers and volunteer fire departments, but
> >that is a very minor consideration.
> >
>
> Which is what was intended by the Constitution. The Militias were
> never to be just state organizations. They were to act as a 'Ready
> Reserve' for the Active Army. That way the Active Army could be kept
> a small organization and reduce the threat of a military coup. The
> only problem was the militias turned into ill-equiped and ill-led
> organizations that could barely fight indians.
>
> When activated the militia units required a great deal of training to
> get them up to the standards of the Active Army.
>
> >A more accurate statement is, "The Federal Government destroyed the
> >state militias and created the National Guard and now Federal
> >officials pretend that the National Guard is the modern embodiment of
> >the old state militias. It is not."
> >
>
> The National Guard is the modern embodiment of the militias. Congress
> is required by the Constitution to regulate and organize the militia
> and the Dick Bill of 1903 replaced the orginal Militia Act of 1792.
Neither one ammended the Constitution.
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
all over the rule-book (Constitution)... they act like they cannot
read... its an act.. they know how to read
Drew Stowers
States if they want to, can organize their own state militias that
have nothing to do with the Guard. But the cost of such are quite
high.
>(rest of anti-militia message snipped)
>
>No, I am NOT a member of any of these self-organized militias. But so
>far as I can see, they have every right to exist.
>
Not without Fed or State authorization. Without that, the
self-organized militias are just private armies. Private armies may
or may not be legal in all states, but unless they put themselves
under some authority to their own states, they have all the legal
rights of a street gang.
Neal Atkins
>You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
>break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
>the "militia"
>groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
>the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
>carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
>time.
since you are obviously such an authority on the LAW, please quote the
LAW that "replaced" the militia with the "National Guard".
bad...@uswest.net
"militias" such as MOM or the Michigan Militia? It is
because those private armies have no legal standing and no
accountability. They don't have any standards that have to
hold
to. It seems that anyone can join a "militia" as long as
they are subversive and have a hatred for government. It's a
cult of personality that prevails in militia circles. Next,
you are going to tell me the IRS has no legal legitimacy
either. Pure Nonsense.
bad...@uswest.net
Neal Atkins wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:15:26 -0700, bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> >You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
> >break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
> >the "militia"
> >groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
> >the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
> >carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
> >time.
>
> since you are obviously such an authority on the LAW, please quote the
> LAW that "replaced" the militia with the "National Guard".
It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act. I'm
neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist, but the point is
moot. Tell me which governor has acknowledged the legitimacy
of "militias" or has activated any in their respective
states.
bad...@uswest.net
Federal Government, while you lean more to strong individual
states rights. I don't believe in all the the legislation
that gets passed into law, so I vote. Many in Militias want
to skip voting and start a war, to "take back" what was
never lost in the first place. We still are a Democratic
Republic, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
You seem to have the wrong impression of me. I'm strongly
"pro gun", but I'm anti extremist. In effect, I'm a one
issue voter.
It's too bad that the extremists (read "militias") in this
country are responsible for the erosion of our second
amendment rights.
"George T. Kramer" wrote:
>
> Hello "BadDog".
>
> One is truly dismayed that you are so terribly misinformed and/or gullible
> to anti-gun propaganda.
>
> >> You write: "You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
> break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All the "militia"
> groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or the Michigan
> Militia) are just looking for an excuse to carry guns and spout off
> political rhetoric at the same time."
>
> >> You complain: "They can be part of an organization that caters to
> disgruntled losers."
>
George T. Kramer
>> You write: "We have a difference of opinion here. I believe in a strong
Federal Government, while you lean more to strong individual states rights.
I don't believe in all the the legislation that gets passed into law, so I
vote. Many in Militias want to skip voting and start a war, to "take back"
what was never lost in the first place. We still are a Democratic Republic,
and I don't see that changing anytime soon."
Yes, we do have a strong difference of opinion here. Like the Founding
Fathers and the governors of the orginal thirteen colonies, I deplore a
large, monolithic federal government. The Federalist Papers strongly support
this assertion because they were written for the specific purpose of
ensuring the state governments that the federal government would not
encroach upon their sovereign authority. One of the biggest faults with a
large, centralized, omnipotent government is that it invariably attracts
those that desire unlimited power. By centralizing government power, it
provides a goal that is attainable, whereas decentralized government power
makes it all that more difficult. This is exactly the problem America faces
today. There are those that truly desire to rule over the American people.
They are called socialists.
>> You write: "You seem to have the wrong impression of me. I'm strongly
"pro gun", but I'm anti extremist. In effect, I'm a one issue voter. It's
too bad that the extremists (read "militias") in this country are
responsible for the erosion of our second
amendment rights."
The reason I have the "wrong impression" of you, baddog, is because you did
not know what the militia was until I explained a few facts. Whether you
knew or not, you repeated the erroneous and intentionallu misleading
propaganda of the socialist anti-gun lobby. One hopes that this has now been
rectified.
It is very odd that you would refer to "militias" (meaning the small number
organized paramilitary groups that make up but a small part of the militia,
I assume) as extremists. Why would you assert this? What exactly have any of
these paramilitary groups done to rate this all-too-common epithet? Other
than running about in the woods in fatigues to take shooting practice, these
groups are rather benign. It appears that you know only about two of them:
the Militia of Montana and the Michigan Militia. Are you familiar with the
other several hundred organized militia groups? Why are they extreme? Is it
because they take the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution seriously?
Is it because they, like the Founders, deplore a large, intrusive federal
government? Is it because they take their personal responsibilities and
civic duties more seriously than most? Methinks you listen to the news media
too much.
By all means, the "militias" you refer to are not at all responsible for the
erosion of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. (Please note,
baddog, how I rearranged the wording from you comments. There are no Second
Amendment rights. There never has been. The right to keep and bear arms
(RKBA) exists outside of both the U.S. Constitution and any form of
government. The Second Amendment recognizes this and pledges not to infringe
upon these pre-existing rights. The Founders knew that if government can
grant rights, it can also rescind them. The Founders, when writing the U.S.
Constitution, made it so that government could not grant rights that already
exist. In this fashion, government can not rescind them.) The type of
"militias" you refer to have been in existence from the very beginning of
this nation and were very much part of American life. The Southeastern Ohio
Defense League, I believe, is the oldest of these militias, coming into
being about the time the Militia Act was passed in the late Nineteenth
Century - 200 years ago! It is hard to fathom how the working expression of
the Second Amendment (a well-regulated milita) can possibly be the source of
the erosion of the same.
Clearly, baddog, the attack on the Second Amendment comes from the socialist
Left. They see it as a real threat to their desire to implement a future
totalitarian socialist state.
Michigan Redneck
any group of people could form, say, a "village militia" and be perfectly
within the law as long as their activities were lawful.
Also, I could be wrong, but I believe that, in past conflicts, groups of
citizens formed an armed unit, elected a leader, offered their services as
combatants to the govornment and were accepted as combat units, subject to
the military chain of command, of course.
--
Please keep in mind, this post could have been written
by an eleven year old kid whose dad left the computer on
while he takes a nap. For that matter, so could yours.
<bad...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:381DA851...@uswest.net...
Michael Shirley
bad...@uswest.net wrote in message <381DA851...@uswest.net>...
>Why is it that I never hear about governors activating
>"militias" such as MOM or the Michigan Militia?
Depends on what you call a militia. Title 10, Section 311 of the
United States Code makes us all members of the Federal
Unorganized Milita. Then the various states do have laws that
pertain to that. For example Nevada's law closely parallels
that of the Feds, except that it doesn't allow for conscientious
objectors.
That status is used, but on individuals, not groups. The Draft
for example,........
>It is
>because those private armies have no legal standing and no
>accountability. They don't have any standards that have to
>hold to.
They don't need to. That's not their purpose. Reread
Madison. Those outfits don't have to exist to serve the
government. Their existance is an outgrowth of a
recognition of the right to revolt, or to provide a credible
threat of one, which is something that Madison commented
on in The Federalist, No.42 as a reason that a standing army
or select government militia could be tolerated. There's nothing
that says that an armed group must be organic to a government
table of organization for it to be constitutionally valid. Read
the First Amendment. It begins "Congress shall make no law",
which effectively puts the right to free expression outside the
framework of a dejure government. The Bill of Rights is a
charter of restrictions on government, not a list of priviledges
extended by it.
>It seems that anyone can join a "militia" as long as
>they are subversive and have a hatred for government.
Not at all. For example I'm extremely subversive and I do
indeed hold government in minimum low esteem, and yet I
find it highly unlikely that I'd be welcome in any of those
militias. <Chuckle> (I'm not at all sure of what I'd do in one
anyway since I'm rather adverse towards joining anything and
utterly lack the requisite herd instinct.)
Militias, which I reiterate are less military organizations than
they are armed grainger parties, are a result of a couple of simple
constants in human affairs. First off, you're going to find that most
organized human activity on the political level is done to deal
with some percieved threat. Secondly, the degree of radicalization
of that group will generally tend to be a result of how extreme the
threat is that they percieve. Extremism on the part of government
will generally breed radicalism in equal measure by those whom
it attacks. The case of these grainger parties is no different. If
the Feds weren't providing a rather credible threat, there'd be no
militias.
You've got a situation where enumerated rights are under attack
and a culture as well. (And it pays to remember that even the UN
in the Genocide treaty to which we're signitory, holds that attacks
on cultures intended to achieve their dissolution, is a form of
genocide for the purposes of international law.) When you do that,
individuals will fight in one way or another for their rights while
those same individuals in aggregate will fight for their culture.
The people who produced those grainger parties are no
different. Neither am I for that matter, and if what's being done
to us were to be done to you by the various organs of state
coercion, I'm sure that you'd probably be doing somewhat more
than merely contemplating organized violence in your own
defense.
And please note here that whenever government passes a
law or proposes to which doesn't enjoy an overwhelming
moral consensus among those who are to be governed by it,
and attacks a group of people based on cultural criteria, you're
going to have those same people organizing to protect themselves
from the depredations of the state and that is a constant whether
it's Haganah or the Cao Dai or the current armed grainger
parties that you consistantly mistake for a military force.
>It's a cult of personality that prevails in militia circles.
We have one in government too, and in the various media.
And not all of the people in the militias are subject to that sort
of charismatic leadership, while many on the government side
are!
> Next,
>you are going to tell me the IRS has no legal legitimacy
>either. Pure Nonsense.
Now that is a rather lame strawman which attempts to make your
case outside of the issue under discussion. That aside, I actually
do happen to think that the income tax and the IRS is legally
legitimate. I don't like paying, but I'm not saying that they don't
have a right to pass a law structuring taxes that way.
What this whole exchange demonstrates is that (a.) you don't
know much of anything about the people that you consistantly
demonize with pejoratives, and (b.) that you're thinking in slogans
which are preventing you from learning anything new.
Perhaps you might want to consider learning to formulate
and ask questions before rushing to the pulpit claiming to have
all of the answers while knowing none of the questions?
Michael Shirley
>"militias" such as MOM or the Michigan Militia?
Depends on what you call a militia. Title 10, Section 311 of the
United States Code makes us all members of the Federal
Unorganized Milita. Then the various states do have laws that
pertain to that. For example Nevada's law closely parallels
that of the Feds, except that it doesn't allow for conscientious
objectors.
That status is used, but on individuals, not groups. The Draft
for example,........
>It is
>because those private armies have no legal standing and no
>accountability. They don't have any standards that have to
>hold to.
They don't need to. That's not their purpose. Reread
Madison. Those outfits don't have to exist to serve the
government. Their existance is an outgrowth of a
recognition of the right to revolt, or to provide a credible
threat of one, which is something that Madison commented
on in The Federalist, No.42 as a reason that a standing army
or select government militia could be tolerated. There's nothing
that says that an armed group must be organic to a government
table of organization for it to be constitutionally valid. Read
the First Amendment. It begins "Congress shall make no law",
which effectively puts the right to free expression outside the
framework of a dejure government. The Bill of Rights is a
charter of restrictions on government, not a list of priviledges
extended by it.
>It seems that anyone can join a "militia" as long as
>they are subversive and have a hatred for government.
Not at all. For example I'm extremely subversive and I do
>It's a cult of personality that prevails in militia circles.
We have one in government too, and in the various media.
And not all of the people in the militias are subject to that sort
of charismatic leadership, while many on the government side
are!
> Next,
>you are going to tell me the IRS has no legal legitimacy
>either. Pure Nonsense.
Now that is a rather lame strawman which attempts to make your
Michael Shirley
Michigan Redneck wrote in message <7vkmhg$q...@journal.concentric.net>...
>I don't think the term "militia" is trademarked, that is to say, I believe
>any group of people could form, say, a "village militia" and be perfectly
>within the law as long as their activities were lawful.
Agreed.
>
>Also, I could be wrong, but I believe that, in past conflicts, groups of
>citizens formed an armed unit, elected a leader, offered their services as
>combatants to the govornment and were accepted as combat units, subject to
>the military chain of command, of course.
Agreed again. US Civil War had many units raised in this way.
>
>--
>Please keep in mind, this post could have been written
>by an eleven year old kid whose dad left the computer on
>while he takes a nap. For that matter, so could yours.
<Chuckle> I sometimes wish that I were eleven again.
John Johnson
> Neal Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:15:26 -0700, bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>>
>>> You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
>>> break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
>>> the "militia" groups around the country (such as the Militia
>>> of Montana or the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an
>>> excuse to carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the
>>> same time.
>>
>> since you are obviously such an authority on the LAW, please quote
>> the LAW that "replaced" the militia with the "National Guard".
>
> It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act.
10 USCS [Armed Forces]
"311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age [Note: which deals with
membership in the National Guard] who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."
Check out 10USC311(b)(2) above: that's _EVERYBODY_ who _ISN'T_ in the
various states' National Guard and/or Reserves or who are exempted
or prohibited by other statutes.
> I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist,...
Rather self-evident; isn't it? <g>
> ...but the point is moot.
Yup: you've proven you haven't a clue!
> Tell me which governor has acknowledged the legitimacy
> of "militias" or has activated any in their respective
> states.
Tell me _any_ state which has suffered a calamity so severe that they
exhausted their State National Guard resources and _needed_ to activate
their "unorganized militia" (or as they are known here in Texas: the "reserve
militia" <http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/codes/GV000081.html>).
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (17+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere,
to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose,
pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption
into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking,
for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching
feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely
accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from
murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task
of choosing his leaders responsibly?"
--Dr. Alan Keyes
Michael Shirley
bad...@uswest.net wrote in message <381DACF2...@uswest.net>...
>We have a difference of opinion here. I believe in a strong
>Federal Government, while you lean more to strong individual
>states rights. I don't believe in all the the legislation
>that gets passed into law, so I vote. Many in Militias want
>to skip voting and start a war, to "take back" what was
>never lost in the first place. We still are a Democratic
>Republic, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
It may happen much sooner than you think
>
>You seem to have the wrong impression of me. I'm strongly
>"pro gun", but I'm anti extremist. In effect, I'm a one
>issue voter.
I'm not sure if you're not mistaken. For far too many years,
what has passed for debate in this country has been two sides
proposing distinctions without any real differences and nobody
bothering to question the fundamental premises of either side.
And that isn't my original observation. I got it from Noam
Chomsky who tends to be right on a lot of things,.......
It doesn't take a lot to be percieved as an extremist when both
alleged mainstream viewpoints are so close that it's difficult to
find any real differences between the two.
>It's too bad that the extremists (read "militias") in this
>country are responsible for the erosion of our second
>amendment rights.
They're not. The government, or more correctly the State,
(Defined as a government which has become it's own
primary constituency) has been doing this for over 30
years now, both in it's dejure governmental and private
sector quasigovernmental sides. The latest long term gun
grab started when a CIA employee named Edwin Welles
formed Handgun Control Inc. The reason for that is that he
was worried about an insurrection in this country, (it was
1968 after all) and he knew from his experience as a
street agent in the OSS, that the workaday weapon of an
urban civilian resistance is a pistol. (And it pays to remember
that his closest partner in this was none other than William
Colby, a fellow OSS alumni.)
Look at every effort at violating the Second Amendment
over the last 30 years and with one exception, it's been
against a percieved military ability in private hands. (And the
reason that their net is getting wider is because they're
finding out that there are very few things in the world that
don't possess some military significance.)
Clayton E. Cramer
> state militias and created the National Guard and now Federal
> officials pretend that the National Guard is the modern embodiment of
> the old state militias. It is not."
Actually, state militias largely did themselves in. Militia duty became
burdensome enough that by the time of the Civil War, state militias
were largely ceremonial and social organizations in the North. They
weren't relied upon for much more than internal security during the
Civil War.
Bill Tyner
George T. Kramer wrote
...The Southeastern Ohio
> Defense League, I believe, is the oldest of these militias,
coming into
> being about the time the Militia Act was passed in the late
Nineteenth
> Century - 200 years ago! It is hard to fathom how the working
expression of
> the Second Amendment (a well-regulated milita) can possibly be
the source of the erosion of the same...
As an Oregonian, I can relate something I read here locally
about a year ago. Someone published the state law regarding the
Oregon State Militia. In effect, the law on the books mentions
that the militia (paraphrasing here) "is comprised of all able
bodied men between 21 and 45 years of age."
I've since wondered what the anti-militia "left" thinks about
being included in the rank and file OSM? There must be a large
"school" of prime left leaning lawyers in that age group. The
word "astonished" comes to mind. For me, the word "amusing" is
good enough...
Bill
Lee Harrison
sty...@budget.net wrote on 11/1/99 3:32 PM:
>
>
> George T. Kramer wrote
>
> ...The Southeastern Ohio
>> Defense League, I believe, is the oldest of these militias,
> coming into
>> being about the time the Militia Act was passed in the late
> Nineteenth
>> Century - 200 years ago!
The Militia Act of 1792 was passed in the late 18th Century.
>> It is hard to fathom how the working
> expression of
>> the Second Amendment (a well-regulated milita) can possibly be
> the source of the erosion of the same...
>
> As an Oregonian, I can relate something I read here locally
> about a year ago. Someone published the state law regarding the
> Oregon State Militia. In effect, the law on the books mentions
> that the militia (paraphrasing here) "is comprised of all able
> bodied men between 21 and 45 years of age."
1997 Oregon Revised Statutes, 396.105 Militia comprised of organized and
unorganized militia.
[begin excerpt]
(1) The militia of the state shall be divided into the organized militia and
the unorganized militia.
(2) The organized militia shall be composed of the Oregon Army National
Guard and the Oregon Air National Guard, which forces together with an
inactive National Guard shall comprise the Oregon National Guard; the Oregon
State Defense Force whenever such a state force shall be duly organized; and
such additional forces as may be created by the Governor.
(3) The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents
of the state between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not serving in any force
of the organized militia or who are not on the state retired list and who
are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United
States; subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are
created by the laws of the United States. [1961 c.454 s.5 (1), (2), (3);
1989 c.361 s.2]
[end excerpt]
The provision for state militia reads about the same in all the state codes
I've seen. States have to follow federal law, allowing for the dual
enlistment of National Guard members at the federal and state levels. About
24 states also have a state defense force, which has no federal role.
> I've since wondered what the anti-militia "left" thinks about
> being included in the rank and file OSM? There must be a large
> "school" of prime left leaning lawyers in that age group. The
> word "astonished" comes to mind. For me, the word "amusing" is
> good enough...
As a left-leaning person, but no lawyer, and not a resident of Oregon, I'm
here to advise liberals in Oregon that you don't have to join the militia if
you don't want to.
> Bill
Oregon State Constitution
http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/
Article X - The Militia
Section 2. Persons exempt. Persons whose religious tenets, or conscientious
scruples forbid them to bear arms shall not be compelled to do so.
[Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 5, 1961, and adopted by
the people Nov. 6, 1962]
See also 1997 Oregon Revised Statutes, 396.115.
Liberal Oregonians can just say conscientious scruples prevent them from
serving in the militia, and they'll be promptly and courteously excused from
militia service.
Just curious, Bill: when was the last time the Governor of Oregon had
anybody drafted into the state militia?
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Erik
I know it's not a "Gov" but I found the following at
http://hometown.aol.com/RMORGAN762/proclamation.html
From the Office of the Mayor
The City of Dayton, Ohio
WHEREAS, the Southeastern Ohio Defense Force is a volunteer
light infantry battalion located
in Zanesville, Ohio; and
WHEREAS, this worthy militia was organized to defend the
state and nation against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, suppress violent insurrection, maintain peace and
order during riots and other
man-made disturbances; and
WHEREAS, valuable assistance is also provided to local
governments during natural disasters to
protect the lives, property and freedoms of the citizens of Ohio; and
WHEREAS, it is my pleasure to ccmmend the numerous
individuals who are taking the
membership oath.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard Clay Dixon, Mayor of the City of
Dayton, do hereby proclaim
Saturday, March 20, 1993 as
SOUTHEASTERN OHIO DEFENSE FORCE DAY
in Dayton.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
caused the Seal of the City of Dayton to be affixed this
19th day of
1993.
Richard Clay Dixon
(Signed)
Mayor of the City of Dayton, Ohio
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
> It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act. I'm
> neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist, but the point is
> moot. Tell me which governor has acknowledged the legitimacy
Tsun
>
>
>Neal Atkins wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:15:26 -0700, bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>>
>> >You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
>> >break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
>> >the "militia"
>> >groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
>> >the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
>> >carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
>> >time.
>>
>> since you are obviously such an authority on the LAW, please quote the
>> LAW that "replaced" the militia with the "National Guard".
>
>It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act. I'm
>neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist, but the point is
>moot. Tell me which governor has acknowledged the legitimacy
>of "militias" or has activated any in their respective
>states.
Most modern governors would rather be stooges of the federal
government than heads of free republics :-) Nothing too myserious
about that. Even most of the allegedly "conservative" governors
would have once been labled pinkos, if not communists.
They are way to the left of where JFK once stood.
Regards,
Tsun
Unknown
<geo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Yes, we do have a strong difference of opinion here. Like the Founding
>Fathers and the governors of the orginal thirteen colonies, I deplore a
>large, monolithic federal government. The Federalist Papers strongly support
>this assertion because they were written for the specific purpose of
>ensuring the state governments that the federal government would not
>encroach upon their sovereign authority.
Excuse me, but the federalist papers were a sales job to let the
people who were afraid of a strong central government know that they
(the federalists) did also believe in states rights. The actual
people who were adamant against a strong central government were the
*anti-federalists*.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member http://www.saf.org
Brassroots, Inc. http://www.brassroots.org
My Web Site - http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Everything that should be illegal.....already is.
Guns did not create our criminals, society did. We created all the criminals
we have and blaming the tools that they use will not solve the problem.
Frank Hurst - October, 1999
Bill Tyner
Lee Harrison wrote
> snip
> (3) The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied
male residents
> of the state between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not serving
in any force
> of the organized militia or who are not on the state retired
list and who
> are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of
the United
> States; subject, however, to such exemptions from military
duty as are
> created by the laws of the United States. [1961 c.454 s.5 (1),
(2), (3);
> 1989 c.361 s.2]
>
> As a left-leaning person, but no lawyer, and not a resident of
Oregon, I'm
> here to advise liberals in Oregon that you don't have to join
the militia if
> you don't want to.
>
> Just curious, Bill: when was the last time the Governor of
Oregon had
> anybody drafted into the state militia?
Hi Lee,
Sorry to hear you are left leaning but then there needs to be
balance. I'm certainly not far right or campaigning for the far
right (whomever they are). Pretty normal actually, with some
left some middle and some right.
I believe that what a CO would need to do is apply for release
because the way I read the paragraph you posted, all men of that
age who meet the criteria are (automatically) in the unregulated
militia. If they want out it looks to me like they must ask
out. Sounds right to me.
My purpose in posting initially was to point out that the word
militia is commonplace, benign and need not be feared.
Bureaucrats make the "bad militia" assertion and the media runs
with it. In fact, the militia is a seldom used but ordinary
part of the political system. I think that the terms militia
and assault rifle are both so badly misused that they have been
elevated to symbol status. Mention either and the ground work
for vilification has been layed.
When were they last called up? I don't know but it looks like
the law can be exercised should our good governor see an
unparalleled need. Maybe when the left gets rowdy enough and
starts to bust up the bar?
Bill
W. E. Woods
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> We have a difference of opinion here. I believe in a strong
> Federal Government, while you lean more to strong individual
> states rights. I don't believe in all the the legislation
> that gets passed into law, so I vote. Many in Militias want
> to skip voting and start a war,
Make that "very few" instead of "many."
W. E. Woods
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> Why is it that I never hear about governors activating
> "militias" such as MOM or the Michigan Militia? It is
> because those private armies have no legal standing and no
> accountability.
Nope. The governors can make the call whenever they want. They cannot
directly "activate" groups like you mention because the state has failed
in its duties. They can, however, put out a call to the militia with
full expectation that the people will come. IMO, it happens whenever
they call for people to fight wildfires, search for someone, or do
disaster relief, among other things.
W. E. Woods
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> Neal Atkins wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:15:26 -0700, bad...@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > >You expect me to believe this nonsense? PULEEZ, give me a
> > >break. The National Guard has replaced the "militia". All
> > >the "militia"
> > >groups around the country (such as the Militia of Montana or
> > >the Michigan Militia) are just looking for an excuse to
> > >carry guns and spout off political rhetoric at the same
> > >time.
> >
> > since you are obviously such an authority on the LAW, please quote the
> > LAW that "replaced" the militia with the "National Guard".
>
> It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act.
It did no such thing.
> I'm
> neither a lawyer nor a constitutionalist, but the point is
> moot. Tell me which governor has acknowledged the legitimacy
> of "militias" or has activated any in their respective
> states.
That's their problem, isn't it?
--
Yale Woodford
>
> I suggest you take another look at your history books. The Union Army
> was made up mostly of militia regiments. The Iron Brigade, the best
> brigade in the Army of the Potomac, was made up entirely of state
> militia regiments.
>
> Robert Sturgeon-
> "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
> After 67 years, it's still working.
That's what my books say, too, Robert. They go on to explain that
militia units made up the vast majority of forces on both sides at First
Bull Run (or First Manassas), militia units that devised their own
uniforms. So, ironically, in this first battle of the Civil War, most
Union soldiers wore grey, and most Confederate soldiers wore blue.
Yale
Lee Harrison
sty...@budget.net wrote on 11/2/99 2:11 AM:
> Lee Harrison wrote
snip
>> (3) The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents
>> of the state between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not serving in any force
>> of the organized militia or who are not on the state retired list and who are
>> or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States;
>> subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the
>> laws of the United States. [1961 c.454 s.5 (1), (2), (3); 1989 c.361 s.2]
>>
>> As a left-leaning person, but no lawyer, and not a resident of Oregon, I'm
>> here to advise liberals in Oregon that you don't have to join the militia if
>> you don't want to.
>>
>> Just curious, Bill: when was the last time the Governor of Oregon had anybody
>> drafted into the state militia?
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> Sorry to hear you are left leaning but then there needs to be
> balance. I'm certainly not far right or campaigning for the far
> right (whomever they are). Pretty normal actually, with some
> left some middle and some right.
I have two left feet (another excuse to avoid militia service).
> I believe that what a CO would need to do is apply for release
> because the way I read the paragraph you posted, all men of that
> age who meet the criteria are (automatically) in the unregulated
> militia. If they want out it looks to me like they must ask
> out. Sounds right to me.
The unorganized militia is still regulated a little bit.
In another discussion, we compared the militia sections of Chapter 10 of the
U.S. Code (Armed Forces) - 10 USC 311-312, also the provision for state
defense forces in Title 32 (National Guard) - 32 USC 109, to the Second
Amendment's guarantee that state militias can keep and bear arms.
Unfortunately we got a little distracted by RKBA, but I did learn that the
feds recognize an unorganized militia [311(b)(2)], which consists of members
of the militia who aren't in the National Guard or Naval Militia National
Guard.
Because of the dual-enlistment aspect of the National Guard or Naval
Militia, you have the members simultaneously enlisted in the State National
Guard and the National Guard of the United States - the state & federal
National Guards, depending on whether the president or the governor calls
them out. So that leaves the state defense forces as the only other militia
members.
However, it looks like each state defines its unorganized militia any way it
chooses, and none seem call them the state defense force. The unorganized
militia within the state are "able bodied persons between ages x & y." In
Virginia they don't even have to be citizens of Virginia, just anybody
passing through is part of the unorganized militia.
Probably because nobody's called out the unorganized militia since the Civil
War, AFAIK, there hasn't been a chance for confusion over the states' and
federal definitions of the unorganized militia.
But Y2K is near.
> My purpose in posting initially was to point out that the word
> militia is commonplace, benign and need not be feared.
> Bureaucrats make the "bad militia" assertion and the media runs
> with it. In fact, the militia is a seldom used but ordinary
> part of the political system. I think that the terms militia
> and assault rifle are both so badly misused that they have been
> elevated to symbol status. Mention either and the ground work
> for vilification has been layed.
The well-regulated militias of the Second Amendment, the state national
guards and state defense forces are, do good things and have state and/or
federal oversight. So-called militias which are not organized by and
responsible to state or federal governments are not well-regulated.
You can find these private groups all over the place, claiming to be some
regiment of some state's militia, when they're really not. As long as they
don't carry their guns to town and declare martial law, I don't have a
problem with them. If the fake militia comes to your house and misbehaves,
you can call the police.
> When were they last called up? I don't know but it looks like
> the law can be exercised should our good governor see an
> unparalleled need. Maybe when the left gets rowdy enough and
> starts to bust up the bar?
> Bill
Who would enforce the law? Maybe when the left gets rowdy and busts up the
library, the governor calls out the unorganized militia; but how does he
make them show up? People have jobs. Liberals are fierce about library
issues; glue may flow. Who's gonna walk into a hail of #2 pencils just
because the governor says so?
Bill
18 to 45 can be called up, All former military up to the age of 55, this
is for state or federal service. Don't have the section listing right
in front of me. but basically EVERY fit male and female citizen of the
USofA IS a member of the unorganized militia. That includes even the
liberal gun grabbers too. You have no legal right not to serve if
called up. If slick willie needed warm bodies, we're going at his beck
and call. Organized Militias of course are the state NG units, Reserve
units, etc. You don't have to do more then be a fit citizen of the
USofA to be a member of the Militia. Most if not all state Militia laws
stem from these same federal laws, not just Oregon. If TSHTF they (the
feds) can just walk up to you and "poof" your active duty, no need to
pass any laws, start the draft, etc, just by being 18 to 45 (or 55 for
us ex-military) is all the requirement needed.
(the other) Bill
Bill Tyner wrote:
> George T. Kramer wrote
>
> ...The Southeastern Ohio
> > Defense League, I believe, is the oldest of these militias,
> coming into
> > being about the time the Militia Act was passed in the late
> Nineteenth
> > Century - 200 years ago! It is hard to fathom how the working
> expression of
> > the Second Amendment (a well-regulated milita) can possibly be
> the source of the erosion of the same...
>
> As an Oregonian, I can relate something I read here locally
> about a year ago. Someone published the state law regarding the
> Oregon State Militia. In effect, the law on the books mentions
> that the militia (paraphrasing here) "is comprised of all able
> bodied men between 21 and 45 years of age."
>
> I've since wondered what the anti-militia "left" thinks about
> being included in the rank and file OSM? There must be a large
> "school" of prime left leaning lawyers in that age group. The
> word "astonished" comes to mind. For me, the word "amusing" is
> good enough...
> Bill
>
>
Bill Tyner
Lee Harrison (of the two left feet) wrote
> I have two left feet (another excuse to avoid militia
service)....
>
> The unorganized militia is still regulated a little bit.
Yes, I agree in that the unorganized militia does not exist
until such time as the governor calls for a muster. All who
meet the criteria 18-45, able bodied men etc are summoned to toe
the line and be counted. They then are given official standing.
Until such time that they have such standing they are "just
friends getting together". Some are gangs, some are bowling
leagues. In some localities I suppose the cops watch em all...
> ...but I did learn that the
> feds recognize an unorganized militia [311(b)(2)], which
consists of >members of the militia who aren't in the National
Guard or Naval Militia >National Guard...
>...If the fake militia comes to your house and misbehaves,
> you can call the police.
See my first paragraph.
>
> Who would enforce the law? Maybe when the left gets rowdy and
busts up >the library, the governor calls out the unorganized
militia; but how does he
> make them show up? People have jobs. Liberals are fierce
about library
> issues; glue may flow. Who's gonna walk into a hail of #2
pencils just
> because the governor says so?
That's an easy one Lee. Our gov is a liberal Democrat. If he
plays a tune they (the left) will fill the stadium. But, none
of them own guns do they? The only members of the Or. St.
Militia who will count will be the ones who show up with their
"gear". Somehow, I don't think that a pencil neck is going to
count for much (unless he is there to record the events).
I read that "in the old days", when the territorial gov called
out the troops for a special event (like the Seminole Wars), you
had to show up with your weapon, a horse and livery. A stipend
and hay would be provided. I hope our (Or.) gov will be as
liberal with the hay as Florida. My horse is big and fat and
gets really surly when the hay runs short...
You mentioned Y2K. I don't believe...sorry!
Bill
Old Guy
>
> Note also, Federal law, all able bodied Male and Females (equal rights)
> 18 to 45 can be called up, All former military up to the age of 55, this
> is for state or federal service. Don't have the section listing right
> in front of me. but basically EVERY fit male and female citizen of the
> USofA IS a member of the unorganized militia. That includes even the
> liberal gun grabbers too. You have no legal right not to serve if
> called up. If slick willie needed warm bodies, we're going at his beck
> and call. Organized Militias of course are the state NG units, Reserve
> units, etc. You don't have to do more then be a fit citizen of the
> USofA to be a member of the Militia. Most if not all state Militia laws
> stem from these same federal laws, not just Oregon. If TSHTF they (the
> feds) can just walk up to you and "poof" your active duty, no need to
> pass any laws, start the draft, etc, just by being 18 to 45 (or 55 for
> us ex-military) is all the requirement needed.
> (the other) Bill
Let me see if I understand this. Under federal law, you can be
drafted against your will between the ages of 18 and 45, but
you can be drafted against your will up to the age of 55 if you
have already served in the military?
So, does this mean that if I served against my will in Viet Nam and
actually served in the military for a full 8 years, and I'm now 50, that
I can be drafted again and made to serve against my will again, while
the guys who were in college back then and received deferments and
NEVER served their country, can't be required to serve if they are
over 45 years of age. Sounds _REAL_ fair ... and par for the course.
And I guess those 18 year olds who were drafted and served 2 years
-- some of them being fortunate enough to have never seen combat --
after over thirty years of being out of the military, are still
that much more valuable that they should be subject to the draft
for an extra 10 years. Yeah, draft people and make them even more
vulnerable to be drafted again; what bullshit.
Old Guy
Jim String
>
>
>bad...@uswest.net wrote:
>>
>> Why is it that I never hear about governors activating
>> "militias" such as MOM or the Michigan Militia? It is
>> because those private armies have no legal standing and no
>> accountability.
>
>directly "activate" groups like you mention because the state has failed
>in its duties. They can, however, put out a call to the militia with
>full expectation that the people will come. IMO, it happens whenever
>they call for people to fight wildfires, search for someone, or do
>disaster relief, among other things.
Wouldn't it be cool if Jesse Ventura called Minnesotans to muster?
"All right all you USC 10 Title 311 folks, show up with your weapons
to be inspected!" Would that rock this country or what?
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:32:47 -0500, "George T. Kramer"
><geo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, we do have a strong difference of opinion here. Like the Founding
>>Fathers and the governors of the orginal thirteen colonies, I deplore a
>>large, monolithic federal government. The Federalist Papers strongly support
>>this assertion because they were written for the specific purpose of
>>ensuring the state governments that the federal government would not
>>encroach upon their sovereign authority.
>
>Excuse me, but the federalist papers were a sales job to let the
>people who were afraid of a strong central government know that they
>(the federalists) did also believe in states rights. The actual
>people who were adamant against a strong central government were the
>*anti-federalists*.
Correct, except states don't have rights, they have powers. Only
individuals have rights, and because of that we have the ability
to grant powers to the state.
Best,
Jim
Lee Harrison
on 11/2/99 11:49 AM:
> Note also, Federal law, all able bodied Male and Females (equal rights)
> 18 to 45 can be called up, All former military up to the age of 55, this
> is for state or federal service.
Well, according to Chapter 13 "The Militia" of Title 10 "The Armed Forces",
Section 311, Subsection (a), only the able-bodied men & women between ages
17 and 45 - who are also members of the National Guard - comprise the
Militia of the United States.
[begin excerpt]
10 USC 311(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of
the United States who are members of the National Guard.
[end excerpt]
Note "who are members of the National Guard."
> Don't have the section listing right
> in front of me. but basically EVERY fit male and female citizen of the
> USofA IS a member of the unorganized militia.
No, just members of the militia who are not in the National Guard or Naval
Militia. See 10 USC 311(b):
[begin excerpt]
10 USC 311(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
[end excerpt]
> That includes even the
> liberal gun grabbers too.
I'm a liberal who owns a gun. Nobody's grabbing your guns, Other Bill.
> You have no legal right not to serve if
> called up.
If you're talking about the Oregon State Militia, you can be excused for
having "conscientious scruples" against militia service. It's in the state
constitution.
> If slick willie needed warm bodies, we're going at his beck
> and call. Organized Militias of course are the state NG units, Reserve
> units, etc.
The Reserve is federal. The organized militia includes the State National
Guard and the National Guard of the United States, both state and federal
aspects recognized as the militia under 10 USC 311(a) as best I can tell.
> You don't have to do more then be a fit citizen of the
> USofA to be a member of the Militia.
Can't be a felon. Have to belong to the National Guard according to federal
law; state militias are a different matter.
> Most if not all state Militia laws
> stem from these same federal laws, not just Oregon. If TSHTF they (the
> feds) can just walk up to you and "poof" your active duty, no need to
> pass any laws, start the draft, etc, just by being 18 to 45 (or 55 for
> us ex-military) is all the requirement needed.
Nah, you might get drafted into the federal military forces if a war broke
out, but National Guard service is all voluntary. As for states calling out
their "unorganized militias"; hasn't happened in over a century, probably
not enforceable, and if taken to the Supreme Court may not stand up as
constitutional. No telling what would happen.
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
> (the other) Bill
Bill
they got called up for Korea. I'd have to say things would have to be very
bad before they called up anyone over 40. But that's the way the fed laws are
written. I guess they figure that us prior military would take less training
to get back into action then folks that never served. The government has
never taken good care of Vets, look at all the Gulf War vets, the government
forced them to take those PB (anit-nerve gas pills) under threat of jail and
how they finial admit that it may have made them all sick (gulf war syndrome),
just like Agent Orange, Atom Bomb testing, etc My father died with a body
riddled with cancer, saying to everyone that the US Government was not to
blame since they told him it was all safe while they tested A & H bombs on the
Bikini atoll, he was there before and after all the tests. They still admit
no blame all these years later. F-ing beaucrates, I just hope to live long
enough to piss on the graves of scum like Jane Fonda and all the other shit
for brain folks who will remain nameless who caused so much pain and suffering
for all the vets who fought it their wars only to get shit on once it was
over.
Old Guy wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > Note also, Federal law, all able bodied Male and Females (equal rights)
> > 18 to 45 can be called up, All former military up to the age of 55, this
> > is for state or federal service. Don't have the section listing right
> > in front of me. but basically EVERY fit male and female citizen of the
> > USofA IS a member of the unorganized militia. That includes even the
> > liberal gun grabbers too. You have no legal right not to serve if
> > called up. If slick willie needed warm bodies, we're going at his beck
> > and call. Organized Militias of course are the state NG units, Reserve
> > units, etc. You don't have to do more then be a fit citizen of the
> > USofA to be a member of the Militia. Most if not all state Militia laws
> > stem from these same federal laws, not just Oregon. If TSHTF they (the
> > feds) can just walk up to you and "poof" your active duty, no need to
> > pass any laws, start the draft, etc, just by being 18 to 45 (or 55 for
> > us ex-military) is all the requirement needed.
Lee Harrison
sty...@budget.net wrote on 11/2/99 12:04 PM:
>
>
> Lee Harrison (of the two left feet) wrote
>> I have two left feet (another excuse to avoid militia
> service)....
>>
>> The unorganized militia is still regulated a little bit.
>
> Yes, I agree in that the unorganized militia does not exist
> until such time as the governor calls for a muster. All who
> meet the criteria 18-45, able bodied men etc are summoned to toe
> the line and be counted. They then are given official standing.
> Until such time that they have such standing they are "just
> friends getting together". Some are gangs, some are bowling
> leagues. In some localities I suppose the cops watch em all...
That may be true at the state level. At the federal level, the unorganized
militia is just all members of the militia who don't belong to the National
Guard or Naval Militia.
>> ...but I did learn that the
>> feds recognize an unorganized militia [311(b)(2)], which consists of
>> members of the militia who aren't in the National
>> Guard or Naval Militia National Guard...
>
>> ...If the fake militia comes to your house and misbehaves,
>> you can call the police.
>
> See my first paragraph.
Sounds to me like the unorganized militia is just a bunch of people
theoretically liable to be called out by a state official, and are defined
as the unorganized militia because they are not active.
So if a buncha guys wearing fatigues and carrying guns is bothering you, and
say they're the unorganized militia, probably call the police.
>> Who would enforce the law? Maybe when the left gets rowdy and
> busts up >the library, the governor calls out the unorganized
> militia; but how does he
>> make them show up? People have jobs. Liberals are fierce
> about library
>> issues; glue may flow. Who's gonna walk into a hail of #2
> pencils just
>> because the governor says so?
>
> That's an easy one Lee. Our gov is a liberal Democrat. If he
> plays a tune they (the left) will fill the stadium.
Liberals are not zombies like dittoheads.
> But, none
> of them own guns do they?
You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many liberals do.
You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
> The only members of the Or. St.
> Militia who will count will be the ones who show up with their
> "gear".
I guess if the OSM is ever called out, we'll know for sure.
> Somehow, I don't think that a pencil neck is going to
> count for much (unless he is there to record the events).
Somehow I doubt anybody will ever be called out for militia service in
Oregon. But you can always fantasize.
> I read that "in the old days", when the territorial gov called
> out the troops for a special event (like the Seminole Wars), you
> had to show up with your weapon, a horse and livery. A stipend
> and hay would be provided. I hope our (Or.) gov will be as
> liberal with the hay as Florida. My horse is big and fat and
> gets really surly when the hay runs short...
No prize for you. The state defense forces get no pay, must supply their
own uniforms and can't even play with guns!
If you were called out you'd probably be hauling garbage, leaving the real
soldiers free to do their jobs.
> You mentioned Y2K. I don't believe...sorry!
I mentioned Y2K because I was kidding you.
> Bill
Bill
I forget the US Code section that lists the ability
of the Federal Government to billet Federal Troops in anyone's house
that is more then One Bedroom, now that one is sure to stir the shit a
bit. Lots of funny laws like that on the books, just like it was
against the law in about 20 some states for Monica to give slick Willie
that Whitehouse Blow Job. Hell in some sates it's against the law
for your own Wife to give you a BJ. We the People are forced to live
by the Laws of the Land, the Powers to be at the top write them and break
them to fit their needs not ours.
Bill B.
"Letter to the Editor
Editor-In-Chief
...snip...
Dear Editor:
I would like to submit the follow letter to be considered for
publication in the "Letters to the Editor" section of your paper.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA.
The people who have fallen under the spell of the current anti-gun hysteria are fond of saying that only the militia has this right to keep and bare arms. As a Nation of People governed by laws, let's look at a couple of the most pertinent laws governing who the Militia is:
Title 10, United States Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45, both citizens and those who have declared their intent to become citizens, and of female citizens who are officers of the National Guard. It also specifies that the militia consists of two classes: The Organized Militia (i.e., the National Guard, etc.) and The Reserve Militia that is ALL of the remaining citizens of the United States.
(As a footnote to Equal Rights, note that in more then 20 states, Oregon being one of them, that militia's can be made up of both males and females.)
Title 32, U.S. Code, Section 313, adds as members of the militia those persons under the age of 64 who are former members of the Regular Armed Forces of the nation.
U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller, ruled that militia members, when called to service, were "EXPECTED to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and be of the kind in common use at the time."
The truth of the matter is Gun-Control equals People-Control. Hitler disarmed the people of Germany before marching them off to concentration camps. Handgun Control, Inc and the anti-gunners are moving the people of America closer to the day where All rights and freedoms are extinguished here too. The founders of the Constitution prepared for this by demanding the Second Amendment be placed alongside the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
I'm positive the founders of this country and the people who have
served, fought and died to defend it would agree that rights and freedoms
must only be added to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not taken
away by the few and powerful. Stand up now and defend ALL of the
Constitution and it's Amendments for ALL the people, before it's too late.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions that might be nice to have
in a perfect world, They are the basic foundations of, and the bare necessities
needed to maintain Freedom in an imperfect world."
Lee Harrison wrote:
in article 381F24B7...@clipper.net, Bill at Boya...@clipper.net wrote
on 11/2/99 11:49 AM:> Note also, Federal law, all able bodied Male and Females (equal rights)
> 18 to 45 can be called up, All former military up to the age of 55, this
> is for state or federal service.Well, according to Chapter 13 "The Militia" of Title 10 "The Armed Forces",
Section 311, Subsection (a), only the able-bodied men & women between ages
17 and 45 - who are also members of the National Guard - comprise the
Militia of the United States.[begin excerpt]
10 USC 311(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of
the United States who are members of the National Guard.[end excerpt]
Note "who are members of the National Guard."
That's "Females who are OFFICERS of the National Guard"
> Don't have the section listing right
> in front of me. but basically EVERY fit male and female citizen of the
> USofA IS a member of the unorganized militia.No, just members of the militia who are not in the National Guard or Naval
Militia. See 10 USC 311(b):[begin excerpt]
10 USC 311(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
That is everyone else ain't it ? If your not in the NG or Naval Guard, that leaves you (all of us between 17 and 45 or 64) in the "Other" group does it not ?
[end excerpt]> That includes even the
> liberal gun grabbers too.I'm a liberal who owns a gun. Nobody's grabbing your guns, Other Bill.
> You have no legal right not to serve if
> called up.If you're talking about the Oregon State Militia, you can be excused for
having "conscientious scruples" against militia service. It's in the state
constitution.> If slick willie needed warm bodies, we're going at his beck
> and call. Organized Militias of course are the state NG units, Reserve
> units, etc.The Reserve is federal. The organized militia includes the State National
Guard and the National Guard of the United States, both state and federal
aspects recognized as the militia under 10 USC 311(a) as best I can tell.> You don't have to do more then be a fit citizen of the
> USofA to be a member of the Militia.Can't be a felon. Have to belong to the National Guard according to federal
law; state militias are a different matter.
Two type of Militias - The Organized Militia (i.e., the National Guard, Naval Guard, etc.) and The Reserve Militia that is ALL of the remaining citizens of the United States. Being a Felon is more then likely correct (being part of the word "Fit"), but the rest is not, two types of militias - Organized and the Reserve, if your Active duty in the NG or Naval Guard then your in the Organized Militia, if your not active duty then your part of the Reserve Militia.
Gunner
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
>Liberals are not zombies like dittoheads.
Oh really?
Provide cite and evidence that liberals are not zombies
Provide cite and evidence that "dittoheads" are zombies
Wanker
Gunner
---------------------------------------------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Free Hobby Buy/Swap/Sell Website
www.cyberg8t.com/gunner/hsm/index.html
Home Page
http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/gunner
Gunner
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 16:16:12 -0600, Lee Harrison
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many liberals do.
>
>You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
Humm and you really have managed to reach an age old enough to legaly
own a firearm? Did you lie about mental problems on your 4473?
YOU MUST HAVE!
GEEZUSS man, who the hell are all the anti-gun folks? Conservitives?
Give me a fucking break!
HCI, top members= Demoncrats
Media, 85% Demoncrats (ABC poll, 1996)
AntiGun legislation attempts 99% from the Demoncrat side of the isle
Chucky Schumer=Demoncrat
Boxer=Demoncrat
Feinstien=Demoncrat
Southern Law think? Tank =Demoncrats
Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
Your post made me almost speechless. Jezus Christos but your truely
deranged to even think about coming up with THAT particular bullshit,
particularily here on this newsgroup, where the vast majority of
posters/readers are NOT brainless sheeple.
#(*%*&#&&&!!~~~ DAMN!
I was right the first time. You are a moron.
Lee Harrison
on 11/2/99 4:52 PM:
> Lee, better re-read that, below is a copy of a letter I once wrote to a few
> newspapers in my area, of course they choose not to publish it as it did not
> fit into their political beliefs.
No doubt.
> It's ALL males from 17 to 45, and Females
> between 17 and 45 WHO are OFFICERS in the NG.
Nope. Here's 10 USC 311(a):
"Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard."
32 USC 313 just has to do with age limitations, specifically upper age
limits; note that 313(a) has nothing to do with rank.
[begin 32 USC 313]
Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person
must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and
a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be
under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a
person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
[end 32 USC 313]
It's obvious that 32 USC 313 does not change 10 USC 311(a) to mean only
National Guard officers are members of the militia. Rather, it extends the
upper age limit for National Guard members who previously served in the
federal military forces, and sets the range of age limits for appointment as
a National Guard officer.
> So it's ALL males between 17
> and 45, and female Officers of the NG, notice the part in Title 32, U.S. Code,
> Section 313, ALL former military are subject to being called up till the age
> of 64, sorry "Old Guy" it was not 55 but 64, looks like you got a few more
> years to go.
You want "10 USC 688. Retired members: authority to order to active duty;
duties." 32 USC 313 just says former members of the federal military can
get original enlistment in the National Guard.
> The "and of female citizens who are officers of the National
> Guard" section was added to be politically correct to the female of the US,
> equal rights and all that shit, does not look too equal to me. As with most
> of the BS laws in this country written by Lawyers it takes one to decipher it.
> And again this country would have to be in some serious trouble before anyone
> over 35 would be called up.
Where does 10 USC 311(a) say anything about officers?
> I forget the US Code section that lists the ability of the Federal
> Government to billet Federal Troops in anyone's house that is more then One
> Bedroom, now that one is sure to stir the shit a bit.
You forget that section because it doesn't exist. See the Third Amendment,
which says:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law."
So if the owner of the house consents, a soldier can take lodging in a
private home. No statute necessary.
I just searched Titles 10, 32 & 50 and found no provision for billeting of
troops in any way counter to the Third Amendment.
The State National Guards are all co-ed. The state defense forces are all
coed AFAIK.
> Title 32, U.S. Code, Section 313, adds as members of the militia those persons
> under the age of 64 who are former members of the Regular Armed Forces of the
> nation.
No, as 32 USC 313 relates to 10 USC 311, it just provides for original
enlistment of former members of the federal armed forces. These persons are
not automatically included in the militia.
> U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller, ruled that militia members, when called to
> service, were "EXPECTED to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and be
> of the kind in common use at the time."
In the unlikely event that a state's unorganized militia is called out, that
might possibly be true. However, most persons in the unorganized militia
don't own guns.
According to "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use
of Firearms" by by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig:
"In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of
which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every
U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults actually owned firearms; 74
percent of gun owners possessed two or more."
I'd bet that less that 25% of adults now own guns, so don't expect your
unorganized militia members to appear bearing arms, if they ever do appear
for some reason.
[snip]
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/2/99 7:56 PM:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 16:16:12 -0600, Lee Harrison
> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Liberals are not zombies like dittoheads.
>
> Oh really?
> Provide cite and evidence that liberals are not zombies
>
> Provide cite and evidence that "dittoheads" are zombies
>
> Wanker
Could you supply a few more of your recent posts? Thanks.
> Gunner
Tsun
wrote:
>Baddog7,
>
>I know it's not a "Gov" but I found the following at
>http://hometown.aol.com/RMORGAN762/proclamation.html
>
>
> From the Office of the Mayor
>
> The City of Dayton, Ohio
>
>
[butting in here] Oh, come now! That's just the mayor of some hick
town in Ohio. Don't pay any attention to what he says. Listen to the
self realized geniuses at the CFR instead! :-)))))
Tsun
>> It's been repeated over and over. It's the Dick Act. I'm
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/2/99 7:56 PM:
> 'The Lone Smuck vomited this bilge:
Takes a real schmuck to misspell his own flame. You have to be smarter than
the flame, kid.
> On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 16:16:12 -0600, Lee Harrison
> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many liberals do.
>>
>> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
>
> Humm and you really have managed to reach an age old enough to legaly
> own a firearm? Did you lie about mental problems on your 4473?
> YOU MUST HAVE!
>
> GEEZUSS man, who the hell are all the anti-gun folks? Conservitives?
> Give me a fucking break!
Just provide your own fucking breaks. Please keep your hands off the
monitor!
> HCI, top members= Demoncrats
> Media, 85% Demoncrats (ABC poll, 1996)
> AntiGun legislation attempts 99% from the Demoncrat side of the isle
> Chucky Schumer=Demoncrat
> Boxer=Demoncrat
> Feinstien=Demoncrat
> Southern Law think? Tank =Demoncrats
Trying to say "Southern Poverty Law Center," son? They fight hate,
intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation.
Just find a quiet, dry place and sleep it off.
> Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
I'm your typical liberal. I live in a house.
Don't worry - your pubescence must end someday, and you'll learn to write
really convincing trolls.
> Your post made me almost speechless. Jezus Christos but your truely
> deranged to even think about coming up with THAT particular bullshit,
> particularily here on this newsgroup, where the vast majority of
> posters/readers are NOT brainless sheeple.
>
> #(*%*&#&&&!!~~~ DAMN!
>
> I was right the first time. You are a moron.
You're still speechless.
Why don't you discuss militias with us? It seems "first thought - best
thought" is not working for you.
> Gunner
Thanks for providing proof that dittoheads are indeed zombies.
Lou Boyd
>
> GEEZUSS man, who the hell are all the anti-gun folks? Conservitives?
> Give me a fucking break!
>
> Media, 85% Demoncrats (ABC poll, 1996)
> AntiGun legislation attempts 99% from the Demoncrat side of the isle
> Chucky Schumer=Demoncrat
> Boxer=Demoncrat
> Feinstien=Demoncrat
> Southern Law think? Tank =Demoncrats
>
I think if you'll check the congressional voting records you'll find
that the people who give us our firearms laws are called politicians and
they come in both Democrat and Republican flavors. There are a lot of
Republicans too who are not conservative and not pro-constitution at
least when it comes to their voting record. Which Republicans have
fought for legislation to repeal our unconstitutional firearms laws?
They do have a majority in both houses. Do you see any bills being
introduced? I haven't.
--
Lou Boyd
FCSA-GOA-NRA-JPFO
Article II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.
Gunner
<bo...@apt2.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:
>\
>>
>> GEEZUSS man, who the hell are all the anti-gun folks? Conservitives?
>> Give me a fucking break!
>>
>> HCI, top members= Demoncrats
>> Media, 85% Demoncrats (ABC poll, 1996)
>> AntiGun legislation attempts 99% from the Demoncrat side of the isle
>> Chucky Schumer=Demoncrat
>> Boxer=Demoncrat
>> Feinstien=Demoncrat
>> Southern Law think? Tank =Demoncrats
>>
>> Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
>
>I think if you'll check the congressional voting records you'll find
>that the people who give us our firearms laws are called politicians and
>they come in both Democrat and Republican flavors. There are a lot of
>Republicans too who are not conservative and not pro-constitution at
>least when it comes to their voting record. Which Republicans have
>fought for legislation to repeal our unconstitutional firearms laws?
>They do have a majority in both houses. Do you see any bills being
>introduced? I haven't.
Your quite correct Lou, however, there were few Republicans who
introduced Anti-gun laws, and the vast majority voted against them,
while on the other hand, the Libs were the ones whom introduced them
and when they were in the majority, passed most of them. Take a look
at how has given us the vast majority of anti-gun laws since '68. Its
not been the conservatives.
Granted, the now-majority Republicans are a gutless bunch, and being
branded by the Leftist Media as "pro-gun/against children etc" is
keeping them from doing what they KNOW is right. There have been a
number of attempts from the more courageous Republicans to introduce
laws repealing various anti laws and to introduce laws that would
prevent any further erosion of our 2nd amendment rights. I see NO
effort from the other side of the aisle to repeal/prevent, and I see
continued efforts to pass more and more restrictive gun laws from that
side. All votes for/against have run typically along party lines, with
a few from each side (very few) voting against their own party's
position.
Taken as a whole, the Republicans are gutless, but do indeed, make
some attempts to restore/prevent while the Demoncrats continually make
attempts to promote stricter laws/bans.
It was NOT the Republicans who introduced nor gave us all last batch
of Kalifornia gun laws.
Mr. Harrisons post, was such an bold lie, I was amazed and pissed that
he could even try to get away with such a thing.
Gunner
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>in article 382c8e63....@news.uia.net, Gunner at gun...@cyberg8t.com
>wrote on 11/2/99 7:56 PM:
>
>> 'The Lone Smuck vomited this bilge:
>
>Takes a real schmuck to misspell his own flame. You have to be smarter than
>the flame, kid.
Geeze, my deepest apologies for not being fluent in Yiddish. Stick to
the point, Troll/Spelling Nazi.
>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 16:16:12 -0600, Lee Harrison
>> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many liberals do.
>>>
The vast majority of "political" liberals, as opposed to your basic
touchy feely sheeple type are most definitely anti gun. Public
rhetoric/legislation/media hype shows that to anyone with more than
two brain cells hooked together.
>>> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>>> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
As opposed to the HCI/SPLC/Demoncrat Propaganda? Oddly enough, the
content of NRA "propaganda" is verifiable, while the BS spewed by the
Left/Antis is not. Matter of fact, its usually so far out into the
"unverifiable" range as to be considered intentionally untruthful..ie
a lie. Like your troll.
>> Humm and you really have managed to reach an age old enough to legaly
>> own a firearm? Did you lie about mental problems on your 4473?
>> YOU MUST HAVE!
>>
>> GEEZUSS man, who the hell are all the anti-gun folks? Conservitives?
>> Give me a fucking break!
>
>Just provide your own fucking breaks. Please keep your hands off the
>monitor!
>
>> HCI, top members= Demoncrats
>> Media, 85% Demoncrats (ABC poll, 1996)
>> AntiGun legislation attempts 99% from the Demoncrat side of the isle
>> Chucky Schumer=Demoncrat
>> Boxer=Demoncrat
>> Feinstien=Demoncrat
>> Southern Law think? Tank =Demoncrats
>
>Trying to say "Southern Poverty Law Center," son? They fight hate,
>intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation.
Ah huh... been to their website. Read it. Nice agenda they have. They
are the same people whom declare their speech is PC, Counter positions
are "hate speech" They are lumped into the same mould with Pitcavage
et al.
And no, I'm not a militia "member" (outside of Sec 10 usage). To say
they (SPLC) are truthful, would be an extreme exaggeration. To say
they have the interests of the country at hearts would be an extreme
exaggeration. To say they were fair in their portrayals, would be an
extreme exaggeration. To say they believe in upholding the
Constitution, would be an extreme exaggeration.
Their site is a mixture of lies, half truths and Leftist propaganda.
And you think they should be given some respect? Not hardly.
And I take it you missed the sarcasm about Think(?) . Work on it. Im
sure that you will get it someday.
>
>Just find a quiet, dry place and sleep it off.
Don't drink, don't do drugs. You? Or are you simply off your meds?
>> Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
>
>I'm your typical liberal. I live in a house.
>
Me too. On several acres. Own my own business too. I do not depend on
taxpayer money for my livelihood. You?
>Don't worry - your pubescence must end someday, and you'll learn to write
>really convincing trolls.
Nope, I wrote a Flame. You wrote a Troll. Good one too. You do know
the difference, don't you? I would hope so, particularly at your age.
I'm 46 btw, so I figured that out at least 8yrs ago, when I first got
on the 'net.
>
>> Your post made me almost speechless. Jezus Christos but your truely
>> deranged to even think about coming up with THAT particular bullshit,
>> particularily here on this newsgroup, where the vast majority of
>> posters/readers are NOT brainless sheeple.
>>
>> #(*%*&#&&&!!~~~ DAMN!
>>
>> I was right the first time. You are a moron.
>
>You're still speechless.
>
>Why don't you discuss militias with us? It seems "first thought - best
>thought" is not working for you.
The militia subject is/has been covered rather well in various threads
recently, and others with more expertise have explained it quite well.
I have no position, one way or another about militias, other than
believing that I (and you) are members of the unorganized militia. I
do not belong to any militia "organizations" nor do I choose to do so
at this time.
>
>> Gunner
>
>Thanks for providing proof that dittoheads are indeed zombies.
>
Thanks for providing Further proof that Liberals are indeed
zombies.(as if we weren't aware of it before...)
Gunner
>
>The Lone Weasel
>
>Not-So-Secret-Hideout
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
>
>My Weasel Board
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/3/99 11:11 AM:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:32:10 -0600, Lee Harrison
> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>>>> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
>
> As opposed to the HCI/SPLC/Demoncrat Propaganda? Oddly enough, the
> content of NRA "propaganda" is verifiable, while the BS spewed by the
> Left/Antis is not. Matter of fact, its usually so far out into the
> "unverifiable" range as to be considered intentionally untruthful..ie
> a lie. Like your troll.
Your entire viewpoint is an ad hominem attack.
Try using facts.
[snip]
>>> Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
>>
>> I'm your typical liberal. I live in a house.
>>
> Me too. On several acres. Own my own business too. I do not depend on
> taxpayer money for my livelihood. You?
I'm independently comfortable, thanks.
So you don't drive on public roads, or expect people to stop at stop signs,
never went to public schools? If you're injured in a car wreck, you'll walk
to the hospital?
No wonder you're confused.
>> Don't worry - your pubescence must end someday, and you'll learn to write
>> really convincing trolls.
>
> Nope, I wrote a Flame. You wrote a Troll. Good one too. You do know
> the difference, don't you? I would hope so, particularly at your age.
> I'm 46 btw, so I figured that out at least 8yrs ago, when I first got
> on the 'net.
That's interesting. How did you remain pubescent for 30 years?
BTW, if you've been online for eight years and still don't know what you're
doing, you might read a book about it.
If you're not an ignorant teeny-bopper, Gummer, I apologize to the ignorant
teeny-boppers of the world for suggesting they could be that dumb.
>>> Your post made me almost speechless. Jezus Christos but your truely
>>> deranged to even think about coming up with THAT particular bullshit,
>>> particularily here on this newsgroup, where the vast majority of
>>> posters/readers are NOT brainless sheeple.
>>>
>>> #(*%*&#&&&!!~~~ DAMN!
>>>
>>> I was right the first time. You are a moron.
>>
>> You're still speechless.
>>
>> Why don't you discuss militias with us? It seems "first thought - best
>> thought" is not working for you.
>
> The militia subject is/has been covered rather well in various threads
> recently, and others with more expertise have explained it quite well.
> I have no position, one way or another about militias,
So you have nothing to add to the discussion?
Next time, just say so.
[snip]
W. E. Woods
Yep. It would be cool for any governor to call out any of the militia
for any reason, but a muster: Wow! I would report, point out that I
brought the weapon I did instead of the standard arm because of NFA '34,
and instantly gain standing to file suit in federal court.
Gunner
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>in article 38226134...@news.uia.net, Gunner at gun...@cyberg8t.com
>wrote on 11/3/99 11:11 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:32:10 -0600, Lee Harrison
>> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>>>>> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
>>
>> As opposed to the HCI/SPLC/Demoncrat Propaganda? Oddly enough, the
>> content of NRA "propaganda" is verifiable, while the BS spewed by the
>> Left/Antis is not. Matter of fact, its usually so far out into the
>> "unverifiable" range as to be considered intentionally untruthful..ie
>> a lie. Like your troll.
>
>Your entire viewpoint is an ad hominem attack.
So? Attacking a troll is considered acceptable on this newsgroup.
>
>Try using facts.
About what? Something you are Not aware of? Imagine that.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> Do you think that you are typical of Liberals? You live in a cave?
>>>
>>> I'm your typical liberal. I live in a house.
>>>
>> Me too. On several acres. Own my own business too. I do not depend on
>> taxpayer money for my livelihood. You?
>
>I'm independently comfortable, thanks.
Congrats.
>So you don't drive on public roads, or expect people to stop at stop signs,
>never went to public schools? If you're injured in a car wreck, you'll walk
>to the hospital?
And your point is? As a taxpayer, I do expect to use public roads etc.
>No wonder you're confused.
With you drifting in and out, yup, Drive on public roads..... ???
where is this twit going now... ok, lets follow him a bit further..
>>> Don't worry - your pubescence must end someday, and you'll learn to write
>>> really convincing trolls.
>>
>> Nope, I wrote a Flame. You wrote a Troll. Good one too. You do know
>> the difference, don't you? I would hope so, particularly at your age.
>> I'm 46 btw, so I figured that out at least 8yrs ago, when I first got
>> on the 'net.
>
>That's interesting. How did you remain pubescent for 30 years?
>
Gee, Ive been pubescent since I was about 8. Before that I was
Pre-pubescent. Still get zits and everything. And your point is?
>BTW, if you've been online for eight years and still don't know what you're
>doing, you might read a book about it.
hu? did I indicate I need some assistance? Do just fine, thanks much.
Even write web sites, and in spare moments, tend to flame trolls.
And your point is?
>If you're not an ignorant teeny-bopper, Gummer, I apologize to the ignorant
>teeny-boppers of the world for suggesting they could be that dumb.
Most of them, thankfuly are not dumb, ignorant perhaps. But not dumb.
Looks like they are swinging to the Right/Conservatism in pretty good
numbers, despite the swill the NEA/NOW/Libs have been feeding them.
Which proves that they indeed are not dumb.
>>>> Your post made me almost speechless. Jezus Christos but your truely
>>>> deranged to even think about coming up with THAT particular bullshit,
>>>> particularily here on this newsgroup, where the vast majority of
>>>> posters/readers are NOT brainless sheeple.
>>>>
>>>> #(*%*&#&&&!!~~~ DAMN!
>>>>
>>>> I was right the first time. You are a moron.
>>>
>>> You're still speechless.
>>>
>>> Why don't you discuss militias with us? It seems "first thought - best
>>> thought" is not working for you.
>>
>> The militia subject is/has been covered rather well in various threads
>> recently, and others with more expertise have explained it quite well.
>> I have no position, one way or another about militias,
>
>So you have nothing to add to the discussion?
Only until the next piece of Troll Shit is posted.
>Next time, just say so.
And your point is?
>[snip]
>
>
>The Lone Weasel
>
>Not-So-Secret-Hideout
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
>
>My Weasel Board
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
>
Not even worth the effort to go look at what kind of feeble BS these
might be.
Gunner
Bill Tyner
Lee Harrison wrote
>, Bill Tyner wrote
>
> >That's an easy one Lee. Our gov is a liberal Democrat. If
he
> > plays a tune they (the left) will fill the stadium.
>
> Liberals are not zombies like dittoheads.
>
We were doing so well until this point in our last exchange (of
ideas). I think you are confusing my term "left" with your
mention of "liberal". I don't think of liberals as left
necessarily. I used the term left to describe the anti
Constitution gun grabbing brand of liberal. Our gov is simply a
Democrat, a moderate/liberal leaning MD. While he would give an
inch on gun control, the true lefties would take a mile. Since
you own a gun, you obviously aren't one of "them".
> You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many
liberals do.
I know literally tons of liberals Lee. I've never run a contest
though to see which of my friends own more guns. Then there's
the problem of finding out how they vote. Ahhh, it ain't worth
the trouble. I'll bet though that there's a difference worth
mentioning.
>
> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe
the NRA
> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda,
it's a lie.
I don't belong to the NRA but from the ads I see and hear, I
can't agree with you on this point.
> If you were called out you'd probably be hauling garbage,
leaving the real
> soldiers free to do their jobs.
Where did this comment come from, left field? I served some
years ago, '66-69, that's true and I was 11B40. Do you know
what that is Lee? Military work is for the younger guys, that's
true. I'm a little long in the tooth now for certain. I guess
maybe you're right, I'd end up carrying the garbage but then we
all had to do that sometime during our tours in the military,
especially during wartime. There is no dishonor in it if that's
what you attempted to infer. Even so, there are some things
military that I continue to perform competently (IMO).
Fantasize about being called up to fight? No, I've been there
and it's the last thing or place I want to return to.
Keep your head down Lee and I'll see you at the rifle range,
0800 sharp! And, ah, you WILL police your own brass...
Bill
Lee Harrison
sty...@budget.net wrote on 11/4/99 3:47 AM:
>
>
> Lee Harrison wrote
>> , Bill Tyner wrote
>>
>>> That's an easy one Lee. Our gov is a liberal Democrat. If
> he
>>> plays a tune they (the left) will fill the stadium.
>>
>> Liberals are not zombies like dittoheads.
>>
> We were doing so well until this point in our last exchange (of
> ideas). I think you are confusing my term "left" with your
> mention of "liberal". I don't think of liberals as left
> necessarily. I used the term left to describe the anti
> Constitution gun grabbing brand of liberal. Our gov is simply a
> Democrat, a moderate/liberal leaning MD. While he would give an
> inch on gun control, the true lefties would take a mile. Since
> you own a gun, you obviously aren't one of "them".
Rush Limbaugh claims to be an old-timey liberal. He's not. Liberals are
left of center - otherwise, we'd be Centrists acting strangely.
When you castigate leftists, you insult liberals. There's really no need
for it in this discussion. Agreed?
>> You don't know many liberals, do you? I own a gun. Many
>> liberals do.
>
> I know literally tons of liberals Lee. I've never run a contest
> though to see which of my friends own more guns. Then there's
> the problem of finding out how they vote. Ahhh, it ain't worth
> the trouble. I'll bet though that there's a difference worth
> mentioning.
BTW, I didn't call you a dittohead; I just said turds to dittoheads, or
something to that effect.
Sorry if I was a little pissed in the last post. Not your fault.
>> You seem to imply that liberals oppose gun ownership. Maybe the NRA
>> propaganda handouts say that, but like most NRA propaganda, it's a lie.
>
> I don't belong to the NRA but from the ads I see and hear, I
> can't agree with you on this point.
I think some extremists may oppose any gun ownership, but most liberals
don't advocate that. We just wanta close some loopholes in the gun law,
like requiring that every sale of a gun, even if it's just a private sale,
get a background check on the buyer. Let them drop by the local police
department, call the sale in to the FBI, pay the fee, no big deal. Unless
the buyer's a felon, under a court order, a fugitive from justice, etc.
>> If you were called out you'd probably be hauling garbage, leaving the real
>> soldiers free to do their jobs.
>
> Where did this comment come from, left field? I served some
> years ago, '66-69, that's true and I was 11B40. Do you know
> what that is Lee? Military work is for the younger guys, that's
> true. I'm a little long in the tooth now for certain. I guess
> maybe you're right, I'd end up carrying the garbage but then we
> all had to do that sometime during our tours in the military,
> especially during wartime. There is no dishonor in it if that's
> what you attempted to infer.
My understanding is that the regular armed forces and some of the National
Guard would see combat, and if the rest of the NG were put into combat, the
state defense forces might be given support roles like taking out garbage.
The state defense forces, which come closest to unorganized militias as best
I can tell, do occasionally see service - aren't paid for their service, are
expected to pay for their own uniforms and gear, don't train with firearms,
don't get alot of credit, but are eager to serve. But they'd get the grunt
work if they're ever called. And by law, the defense force "may not be
called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces." 32 USC 109(c).
If you're a veteran, you can get original enlistment in the National Guard
up to the age of 64, according to 32 USC 313(a).
> Even so, there are some things
> military that I continue to perform competently (IMO).
> Fantasize about being called up to fight? No, I've been there
> and it's the last thing or place I want to return to.
>
> Keep your head down Lee and I'll see you at the rifle range,
> 0800 sharp!
Too early for me. Around here we don't have a real target range, just a
place outa town where folks blast cans and haybales. I just bought a 12
gauge, an old Western Field "Slugster" which appears to function perfectly,
but haven't shot it yet.
> And, ah, you WILL police your own brass...
Thought you said "ass." Maybe I should learn how to reload slugs. I really
get a kick outa shooting them.
> Bill
Jim String
Quite right, one ought to be able to show up with a brand new M-16.
Best,
Jim
Gunner
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>I think some extremists may oppose any gun ownership, but most liberals
>don't advocate that. We just wanta close some loopholes in the gun law,
>like requiring that every sale of a gun, even if it's just a private sale,
>get a background check on the buyer. Let them drop by the local police
>department, call the sale in to the FBI, pay the fee, no big deal. Unless
>the buyer's a felon, under a court order, a fugitive from justice, etc.
Humm.... close some loopholes....
Magazine capacity ban
"black gun" ban
1 a month ban
no machine gun ban
no importation of legal weapons (sks, etc)
stopping of gun shows
Sueing gun manufactures to put them out of business
gutting insta-check and going with longer waiting periods
I can go on.......
Everytime I hear "close some loopholes", I recall how the Crime Bill
was going to be the End All and Be All of gun control. Pushed hard as
the final loophole closer. Ok, the Left/Libs got it. The ink was not
even dry, and those same people now say..."well, it was a good start,
now lets close more loopholes.
You must realize, that they are not going to stop until there are NO
guns in private hands. Period. Full stop. End Program.
They have been "closing loopholes" since the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The camels nose under the tent analogy is apt. Pretty soon the whole
damned monster is in the tent.
Its time to draw the line. When they cross it, cut them off at the
knees, else they will Close the Loopholes and you will have NO guns.
Period. And this is the lefts/libs Professed, documented intent.
And as far as Rush being an Old Time Liberal, he is correct, The
Liberals of the 1700-1800s were what we now consider Conservatives
today. Read a bit of history. Only since The early 1900s has the
entire course of the Libs done a full 180. Look at Southern Democrats.
Many of them are Conservatives. Look at how many jumped to the
Republican side of the asle over the last 10 yrs.
David Moffitt
Gunner <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
news:38230577...@news.uia.net...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 23:30:56 -0600, Lee Harrison
> <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
> >I think some extremists may oppose any gun ownership, but most liberals
> >don't advocate that. We just wanta close some loopholes in the gun law,
> >like requiring that every sale of a gun, even if it's just a private
sale,
> >get a background check on the buyer. Let them drop by the local police
> >department, call the sale in to the FBI, pay the fee, no big deal.
Unless
> >the buyer's a felon, under a court order, a fugitive from justice, etc.
> Humm.... close some loopholes....
> Magazine capacity ban
> "black gun" ban
> 1 a month ban
> no machine gun ban
> no importation of legal weapons (sks, etc)
> stopping of gun shows
> Sueing gun manufactures to put them out of business
> gutting insta-check and going with longer waiting periods
> I can go on.......
To see the socialists version of the 2nd Amendment, visit this url:
http://www.conservativenews.org/cartoon/archive/cart19990713a.asp
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA member----and damn proud of it
"The worst thing you can do is be frightened. The truly dangerous enemy is
not the cold or the hunger, so much as fear. It robs the wanderer of his
judgment and of his limb power; it is fear that turns the passing experience
into a final tragedy...Keep cool and all will be well...Use what you have,
where you are, right now."
Ernest Thompson Seton, 1906
Frank Ney
"W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> to write:
>> Wouldn't it be cool if Jesse Ventura called Minnesotans to muster?
>> "All right all you USC 10 Title 311 folks, show up with your weapons
>> to be inspected!" Would that rock this country or what?
>
>Yep. It would be cool for any governor to call out any of the militia
>for any reason, but a muster: Wow! I would report, point out that I
>brought the weapon I did instead of the standard arm because of NFA '34,
>and instantly gain standing to file suit in federal court.
While the governor doesn't exactly call us out every time we're needed, we
could be if the fertilizer hits the ventilator.
Other than that, my militia meets the first Monday of every month, plus
various training/housekeeping details scattered throughout the month, plus
bingo every Friday night, plus having to drop what I'm doing when the
"muster" siren blows...
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"It's tough to not see Orwell when people keep using 1984 as a study guide."
-eff...@best.com
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://www.freespeech.org/justsayno
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
L. Neil Smith for President! http://www.lns2000.org
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Col. R.G. Fitzbottom
http://members.tripod.com/sonoguy/invasion.html
Bill Tyner <sty...@budget.net> wrote in message
news:01bf24b1$5e3053a0$211b98d0@default...
geomoto
If the United States finds itself in a conflict where it needs to draft
men over 45 years old, we will be in deep, deep trouble. It will mean
that we have run out of men under 45 to draft. If we are at that point,
one would imagine that we will be fighting for our very existence! Keep
in mind that no one was drafted over age 45 in all of World War II.
This possibility is very remote, indeed.
In the mean time, we will not become involved in a major war. This is
because at the present moment the current resident doesn't have the
support of the American people. I am probably a lot like you, Old Guy.
I will willingly fight and die for my family (and yours, too), but I
will not fight for military adventurism on behalf of a debauched and
perjured president.
--
George T. Kramer
"Don't Tread On Me!"
"Choice begins today; not six weeks later!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.