It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The truth behind America's 'civilian militias'

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by lastrebel
 


So if you elect a corrupt politician, who's really to blame when that corrupt politician does something bad for the country? That's right, his bosses, the people that voted him into office.


Haha, no.

The politician is to blame for his crimes.

Why do you pretend that someone else is responsible?




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by lastrebel
 

Therefore if the politicians that were constitutionally elected by the people are corrupt it is the fault of the people.

So if you elect a corrupt politician, who's really to blame when that corrupt politician does something bad for the country? That's right, his bosses, the people that voted him into office. So therefore, if the militias forcibly remove said politician from office they are going against the will of those voters that put that corrupt politician in office to begin with. Therefore they are Traitors as they are willfully ignoring the will of the people and declaring war against the United States.



So you admit we are the real rulers of our country....the "bosses"....LOL

By your standard a politicion couldnt be arrested for stealing, murder, rape.....heck any crime....after all we elected them so we MUST do as they say and accept their orders and any crime commited is of course OUR crime...not theirs

And if they arent accountable for their actions, why should the mugger on the street, or the child molester be accountable for his actions?



[edit on 20-8-2010 by lastrebel]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Good job, you figured it out. Yes, the Congress has jurisdiction over the militias, therefore, if the militias go against the government, they are in violation of the Constitution they are supposed to support.

Course another word for that is Treason.


When the government goes against the ppl you might call
that treason as well.

Over 80% thought the bankster bailout was BS.

They have not let the members of government read the bills
they tell them to shut up and sign.

The government has been breached.

We can try to take it back this fall at the ballot box, but I do not
think that is going to happen.

My personal plan is to hide, I plan to survive not die as some
unknown maggot food in field somewhere.

Good Luck to you all !



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 



So you admit we are the real rulers of our country....the "bosses"....LOL


Yes we are, we always have been. The problem is, some Americans don't lobby their government correctly. If Americans that are against particular legislation would lobby their government correctly they would see how well the system really works.


By your standard a politicion couldnt be arrested for stealing, murder, rape.....heck any crime....after all we elected them so we MUST do as they say and accept their orders and any crime commited is of course OUR crime...not theirs


No actually a Senator or Representative can be arrested. It's in the Constitution, you might actually want to read this document, it might help. See, while a Senator or Representative can be arrested for the above offenses, one who would wish to do so has to have concrete evidence of said offenses, you can't just go and arrest your Senator or Representative on the basis of "I think he is a traitor" it doesn't work that way.


They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.


Article I Section 6


And if they arent accountable for their actions, why should the mugger on the street, or the child molester be accountable for his actions?


They are accountable for their actions, as listed above, however, I believe your only point is to be a troll. As I have said before it is our government, we the people are in charge, and it is our fault if we elect someone who is corrupt. You cannot blame a politician that is corrupt for being corrupt if it was known that they are corrupt when they were elected.

The problem I see, is when a minority want to override the majority and forcibly remove a constitutionally elected government. Doesn't sound to me like that minority wants anything to do with freedom. Sounds more like the start of a fascist dictatorship to me.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I am a troll..........LOL.........no where in there did I insult you or call names......you did, which might explain the two flags

While I am at it, I never said they should be arrested for me "thinking their a traitor" YOU stated that we were responsible for their crimes not them, I merely said they should be held accountable for their actions

As for reading the constition....I have a copy on my wall and firmly believe it to be one of the finest crafted documents ever wrote. But to fully understand it you have to read the words of our founding fathers..........which you would probably consider traitors for "forcably" removing poor old King George from "office" Do you really believe this was what they wanted? A HUGE central government that dictates our entire lives, feeds those too lazy to work, taxes us at a higher rate than THEY were taxed when they started the revolution. "polices" the world......whither they want it or not, imprsions more of its people than any country on earth etc

Elected is a joke......we are given two choices that are hand picked for us and whose polices are identical, even as they protest how the other will ruin the country.....which is about the only real words they speak.....boyh WILL ruin the country.

Even when someone that truely has the princables of which this country was founded slips through the cracks and gets elected the other few hundred crooks outvote him

OK you can call me some more names now



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 



I am a troll..........LOL.........no where in there did I insult you or call names......you did, which might explain the two flags


And that has to do with this topic how? See, I was well justified in calling you a troll.


While I am at it, I never said they should be arrested for me "thinking their a traitor" YOU stated that we were responsible for their crimes not them, I merely said they should be held accountable for their actions


We are responsible for electing corrupt individuals into office, If they commit a crime while in office, that is on them, but if they are just corrupt, then are they truly to blame or are we?


As for reading the constition....I have a copy on my wall and firmly believe it to be one of the finest crafted documents ever wrote. But to fully understand it you have to read the words of our founding fathers.


Actually, it's you that really do need to read the Constitution, having it on your wall is all well and good, but reading it is an entirely different matter. From this thread it would appear that you haven't bothered to read past the preamble.


which you would probably consider traitors for "forcably" removing poor old King George from "office" Do you really believe this was what they wanted? A HUGE central government that dictates our entire lives, feeds those too lazy to work, taxes us at a higher rate than THEY were taxed when they started the revolution. "polices" the world......whither they want it or not, imprsions more of its people than any country on earth etc


See, the problem with trolls is, they tend to try and incite an argument instead of actually reading what the other person wrote. I wonder, have I ever said that the founding fathers were Traitors? Hmm, I don't think so, doesn't seem like something I would say.


Elected is a joke......we are given two choices that are hand picked for us and whose polices are identical, even as they protest how the other will ruin the country.....which is about the only real words they speak.....boyh WILL ruin the country.


See, this shows me conclusively that you didn't vote in the last election, or if you did, you didn't bother to read who was on the ballot.

politics1.com...

There were a lot of people that actually made it on the ballot. So, who's fault is it that one of the two main party candidates took the office instead of a third party candidate?


Even when someone that truely has the princables of which this country was founded slips through the cracks and gets elected the other few hundred crooks outvote him


Doesn't that just say that you need to vote out the few hundred crooks? Oh that's right, you didn't bother to vote.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Militias are full of wanna-be tough guys and gals that likely never served in a real branch of the military. To me, they're on the same level as mercenaries like Blackwater.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
To be, or not to be, that is the QUESTION.

A militia is defined as what, a civilian that would pick up arms if the need arised.

A militia could be defined as anyone, that is armed to resist tyranny.

THAT is the purpose of the second amendment.

People will bring up defense, well hell, of course that is part of it, but not the main purpose behind the second amendment.

I can see that the obfuscational team has arrived to the thread.
Anyway, the size has NOTHING to do with it. Actually, the smaller the force, the better. Just remember, that hiding the arms and munitions was the MOST important part of the revolutionary war.

Big lips sunk ships.

DO not TREAD on ME!

That about gets RIGHT to the point.

Anyway, I as a peaceful non interventionalist, will only engage if they bring force first. That is our power, self control and their TYRANNY first and foremost.

Anyway, LET ER FLY!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
From what I have gleaned about America:

The Militia - Defending the citizens and rights of their country.

The Military - Defending the interests (read: finances) of their country.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by SerialLurker]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


www.merriam-webster.com...

The above is the definition of Militia, the single person with a gun calling themselves a militia is actually called a nut job, lone gunman, moron, and or cannon fodder.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Sorry, the definition of militia has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING you link to.

The Constitution was written in the years of 1775-1790.

Tell me, what did the word militia mean at that time?

You can post links to all the CRAP you want, there is a thing called ORIGINAL INTENT.

Sorry, your link to some vagrant definition means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING.

Historical REFERENCE.

Why do you not give us a historical definition?

Oh, because you have an agenda. Bu bye.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


For some reason I think that 1625 is older than 1776. But I could be wrong.


But I get what you are saying, you don't care what the actual definition of the word Militia means, you are going to assign it any meaning you want it to. Gotcha


Of course we can go back to the Articles of Confederation, (that would be basically the first constitution, and see what they say about Militias)


No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.


www.earlyamerica.com...

Hmm, seems to me that the states would still regulate the Militias. How odd, for some reason it doesn't state that Militias can work on their own either.

Not to mention what Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution says about the subject.

So there's the historical context in America of the Use of Militias.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Tell me, what was the definition of MILITIA at the TIME that the Constitution was written?

You can attempt to obfuscate all you want. Does not mean anything though.

Original intent has been used THROUGH OUT history when deciding Constitutional reference.

What was the definition of militia when used in the Constitution?

Let me remind you!



This was ONE of the 1000's of militias! Ever heard of the Gadsden Flag, or better yet-

Hopkins Flag!?




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

People should actually read this document, it would be so helpful.

But I guess you are against that idea of Congress telling your Militia what to do right? Or disciplining, or regulating, hmm. Doesn't seem like you want to be in a Militia at all, sounds to me like you want to be in a street gang.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yes, read and UNDERSTAND the historical reference of the words and the MEANINGS!

No, of course not, those that continue to PUSH the modified meanings of the words.

TELL ME OH ENLIGHTENED one.

What does this mean-shall not be infringed?
How bout-
Congress shall make NO LAW!

Oh well, just manipulate the meaning of the words right!?

Going to tell me that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means something else?

You can attempt to manipulate the words, you can attempt to manipulate the meaning behind the Constitution, BUT you will FAIL!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Whatever, no matter what I do you want to argue. Fine, go ahead, I never said anything about infringing your rights at all, I don't know where you got the idea that I had.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It is interesting that the description is "the Militia". Militia is capitalized and the word "the" seems to connote one known unit. If it was describing a unit of armed citizens I would think it would say "a militia" with a lower-case "m" and the word "a" connoting any militia raised by (or in) any state for any reason.

Eh...just my musings. My signature and avatar pretty much give my views on our government.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Quaght
 


Today, what the Militia really means is the National Guard, however, I don't feel that it's right for a Militia to be paid from the DOD budget.

Frankly I would like to see each state raise up it's own Militia, according to the Constitution. I think that is a right that states have.

But that's my opinion on it, I am sure that some in this thread would argue that I am some evil bastard for some reason for suggesting it.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Hello Wuky, it has been a long time since we debated a subject. I ask that you consder the following:

1) If Congress is to provide arms for the militia (or militias), then why is that Second Amendment exists at all as it would seem that it is up to the individual to procure, keep and bare arms?

2) If the Congress is control of the militia, why exactly is the President in charge of the use, placement and movement of all armed forces? Would that not also imply that the President could also order a militia to deploy on a target or protect an area of his choosing?

3) If the People are indeed ultimately in charge of the country, as established in the preamble. Could not these People also decide that a body (or all bodies) of the government have suddenly abandoned their limitations as established by the Constitution and act according by verbally demanding a recall of part or all of the current representation? Could they also determine that armed force my be necessary to accomplish this?

4) If the People were to decide to overthrow the seated government and succeed to do so by force of arms, is it still going to be called treason by the replacement even if the exact current Constitution is used by the new representation of the People?

5) If an enemy of the US is an organization or group that seeks to remove, alter or restrict the provisions and rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, would not a federal government that seeks to conduct themselves outside the limitations and confines of Constitution also be considered a domestic enemy? If so, and since such a group would not call forth for its own destruction, would it not fall upon the People themselves to make such a determination and act upon it, by armed force as necessary, in oder for the Constitutional limited federal government was restored?

I could go on but I think those are some questions that should be answered first. And yes, this was placed inside the mod as member box so that all would see that this is again one member questioning another member and not a "mod calling one out" or whatever may be misinterpreted.

I have to say it is been a long time, Wuk. And you know I love and miss these sort of debates.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
1.Forced government healthcare taxes.-why is this a big deal? many countries do it. we have forced taxes for school, infastructure, libraries,etc but when it comes to help a person live a healthy life it becomes an issue?? weird.

2.Forced government vaccinations.- how dare they try and protect us from diseases, the audacity. Now if it proven w/o a reasonable doubt there are ulterior motives and they are harmful then i will agree.

3.Warrant-less searches.- this in itself is revolution worthy imo so i agree.

4.Normal citizens labeled as potential terrorist.-same as 3

5.Government mandated Floridation of drinking water.- this is scary as well

plus many many more.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join