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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Obviously voting is not working


Oh I see, so we should all vote for conservatives and that would make everything ok?



Why are you pretending that hawkiye said that if we all vote for conservatives that would make everything ok?

Why are you pretending?




[edit on 23-8-2010 by Exuberant1]




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Obviously voting is not working


Oh I see, so we should all vote for conservatives and that would make everything ok?

I see, votes don't work if people don't vote the way YOU want them to vote? Is that right? If people choose their own representatives instead of the representatives that you want it's rife with corruption. and so therefore the only thing left is civil war because people didn't choose the people YOU want in government.

I think they call your idea tyranny. You know, "Vote my way or die!"?





Where did I say everyone should vote for conservatives? Also please quote where I said vote my way or die? That is your straw man argument I said voting is not working so your obvious attempt to throw up a straw man to knock down and falsely characterize my post speaks volumes of you. I guess if you can't argue facts you just make something up. You obviously ignored my other points. Your Bias is showing.

It doesn't matter who gets voted in they are all corrupt. And people don't trust them or the elections. The false left right divide works wonders. Which ever side gets elected the other side calls foul. Even if the elections are not fixed it doesn't matter because the federal government is out of control and violates its law the constitution daily and it is therefore left up to the people to do something to hold them accountable.

So let me put it another way obviously elections do not hold these people accountable they promise the world then do what they want in violation of the constitution when elected. Bush ran on a non-interventionist platform and took us in to two illegal wars now dragging on ten years, and Obama ran on bringing the troops home and has now expanded both wars and sent more troops. Those are just two of myriads of broken promises and unlawful acts. So again obviously conventional methods are not working to hold these people accountable.

So what is your solution? Or do you just want to play left vs. right games and not have meaningful discussion?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Obama ran on bringing the troops home and has now expanded both wars and sent more troops.


It's going to be hard to have a meaningful discussion if you keep listening to right wingers lie to you.

You have heard that the last of the combat troops are leaving Iraq right? And Obama never said he was going to stop the war in Afghanistan, if you actually listened to the debates instead of right wing media, you would know that Obama actually pledged during the campaign to put more troops into Afghanistan.





Last combat troops leave Iraq

But you don't want to aknowledge that because it shows how slanted and selective your view is.

So when you listen to right wingers lie to you and believe it, all you do is end up looking foolish.

Apparently I am the only member on this site that is supposed to be unbiased. It's really odd, I don't like it, because when I call people on their obvious bias, they always backtrack and try and proclaim themselves as defenders of the middle ground.


So what is your solution? Or do you just want to play left vs. right games and not have meaningful discussion?


I have already typed out my solutions in this thread however if you don't want to read them it's not my problem and I see no reason to waste my time in retyping them again. It's not my fault you didn't bother to read what I wrote, so I don't really care to repeat myself.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


And you should stop repeating media BS. Yep the last of the combat troops are coming home gee whose going to occupy those 50 US bases we are building over their? Can I interest you in some prime Everglades land in Florida? I guess if it got on dat der TV it must be true... Sigh! I guess its about time to put you on ignore since I don't have time for complete idiots... Bigger Sigh!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




And you should stop repeating media BS. Yep the last of the combat troops are coming home gee whose going to occupy those 50 US bases we are building over their? Can I interest you in some prime Everglades land in Florida? I guess if it got on dat der TV it must be true... Sigh! I guess its about time to put you on ignore since I don't have time for complete idiots... Bigger Sigh!


I don't know why your mad, I just caught you in your mistake, you claimed and i'll quote...


Obama ran on bringing the troops home and has now expanded both wars and sent more troops.


And I showed you that you were wrong. I showed that both Obama did not run on bringing the troops home, and that he did not expand the war in Iraq, it's impossible to expand a war if you are bringing your combat troops home.

So if your going to be mad, be mad at who you are getting your misleading information from. Don't be mad at me for catching you on it. But at least we can agree, that putting me on ignore probably will be your best option, because I don't think that it would be a good idea for you to waste your time with me when you have so much disinfo to slop up like a dog at dinner. Ill just ruin your day with reality and that probably won't do you a lick of good.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Oh I see, so we should all vote for conservatives and that would make everything ok?


You're extrapolating far more than was intended.


I see, votes don't work if people don't vote the way YOU want them to vote? Is that right? If people choose their own representatives instead of the representatives that you want it's rife with corruption. and so therefore the only thing left is civil war because people didn't choose the people YOU want in government.


Calm down and look.

It has little to do with the ballot box and more to do with the function of government.

The federal government was created to settle disputes between the states, to provide for and regulate currency, and to provide for the defense of the federated union at large (Pick on one of us, you pick on all of us).

In what capacity is that being done? The government is printing money like no tomorrow - I realize 2012 is right around the corner, but, come on. We all saw what happened to Germany prior to WWII. I'd rather not repeat that experience.

The federal government refuses to uphold its own immigration laws, and states along the southern border have repeatedly asked over the decades for assistance in dealing with armed drug cartels and even uniformed mexican military operations within our borders. Nothing has been done.

We also have two pieces of legislation that have been outright rejected by multiple states, with the federal response amounting to "go get bent."

It's not performing its functions. Nor is it performing to the satisfaction of most people. Party-line politics have effectively defeated the ballot box.


I think they call your idea tyranny. You know, "Vote my way or die!"


It would be more accurate to say the response at least 20 states have given is akin to "let us live the way we want to, or we'll just do it anyway and not be part of your sinking ship."

Considering it is within the states' right to do that, and the legislation in question breaches separation of powers, the states are completely in their right to do that.

As a member of the USN - I have to say that most of us would never turn on our families and our service-members' families. You all have wet your own bed, and we'll let you sleep in it. We'll be there to make sure you all don't get too carried away - but we've no place in such a civil dispute.

And, honestly, the federal military doesn't stand a chance against the militia. The more organized militias (like the Missouri Militia) are trained like special forces by prior special forces operatives. They've got their own plans and contingencies, and could probably bring the federal government down in less than 72 hours (it is not like senators are all that hard to get to - and with such large and diverse networks having access to instant and mobile communications perfectly accepted in the civilian world - it would be a piece of cake). The problem is the "now what?"

Getting rid of the current government is only a tiny portion of the problem, and the easiest thing to accomplish. The hardest thing to do will be to get everyone to try and agree on a new Constitution and structure of government. Until you can do that, you're looking at the French Revolution all over again, with people being killed for the sake of being killed.

That's why it's not likely you will see that kind of 'revolt' - the people capable of making it happen realize it would be a hollow accomplishment.

In either case - you'd be hard pressed to see the federal military take much of an aggressive stance. A lot of people are family of our fellow service members - be they right or wrong in their beliefs, in agreement or in disagreement - we'd rather not start shooting at them. Nor would we take too kindly to being told to shoot at them.

Now - on that note, if there are riots, there will be war-lords that will arise. We can't have our families endangered by them if they are acting erratic. So there is that to consider.

In the end - most people in the U.S. military have a loyalty to their families and friends back home - even above the Constitution. Many are not all that happy with the federal government and the ridiculous things we see go on within the military because of some idiot politician or general trying to be a politician.

Personally - I'd want to see the union preserved and everyone happy without killing each other. Congress? The President? ... If you all want to run them out on a rail - I don't blame you, and will stay out of your way. Just remember to settle down and start working on fixing things.

I see two nations coming out of this, honestly - one a socialist state, and the other a free market. The differences of opinion are so deeply rooted that I don't see another option being practical or stable. Those for a free market will never be happy in a socialist state. Those for a socialist state are retarded, but would never be happy until they had a country of their own to run into the ground.

Yeah, I know - that is what a state is supposed to be - its own little mini-country, but... well, that's what you get from a state run public education system - people who don't know how their government works.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


While you are correct that president Obama did not run on the promise of ending the campaign in Afghanistan, I would like to point out that the statement that "combat troops are all gone from Iraq" is erroneous. There still remain a tad over 50,000 ish combat troops in Iraq, who have simply and/or supposedly had their "direction", well, re-directed.
They are now "the artist formerly known as Prince" so to speak; i.e. "advisors".

Not only are they not going anywhere, but there are more scheduled to deploy there in the not too distant future. (Sorry, OPSEC, cant be more specific.)

This is akin to me making the statement that I am Walter Matthow. If I were to do so, one or both of the the following statements would be true.
1. I would be completely delusional.
2. I would be a liar, and you would be gullible for believing me...

Of course, the timing of this has absolutely nothing at all to do with how many incumbents (on both ends of the snake) have lost their respective primaries, nor the fact that the election is only three months off now.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



The federal government refuses to uphold its own immigration laws, and states along the southern border have repeatedly asked over the decades for assistance in dealing with armed drug cartels and even uniformed mexican military operations within our borders. Nothing has been done.


More right wing lies.

The fact is, the federal government is doing more since this administration has taken office than the previous one ever bothered to do.

www.usatoday.com...


National Guard troops assigned to the Southwest border will begin to arrive Aug. 1, and the federal government is sending other reinforcements to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and narcotics entering the state, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday.

"These troops will provide direct support to federal law enforcement officers and agents working in high-risk areas to disrupt criminal organizations seeking to move people and goods illegally across the Southwest border," Napolitano said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


But the right wingers want to lie to you, they want you to think that this administration "refuses to uphold its own immigration laws" That simply is a lie, a blatant lie, and one that no matter how many times anyone will show you people up on it, you will accept, frankly you will gloss over that completely and pretend like it never was typed out. So, here's another couple of articles for you so that you can have the opportunity to actually read one of them.

arizona.indymedia.org...
trac.syr.edu...


Getting rid of the current government is only a tiny portion of the problem, and the easiest thing to accomplish. The hardest thing to do will be to get everyone to try and agree on a new Constitution and structure of government. Until you can do that, you're looking at the French Revolution all over again, with people being killed for the sake of being killed.


See, right there is where my ire gets up, it's this idea that we need to change the Constitution, and I agree with you that it would be just like the French Revolution all over again, with people who don't fit exactly into the mold of what these right wing nut cases with guns think an American should be. Fact of the matter is I would dare say that it would be far worse, more like the Russian Revolution with a person like Stalin rising in power and the unfortunate political prisoners "vanishing".


That's why it's not likely you will see that kind of 'revolt' - the people capable of making it happen realize it would be a hollow accomplishment.


I think that's their goal, and I don't think they care whether or not the accomplishment is hollow.


I see two nations coming out of this, honestly - one a socialist state, and the other a free market. The differences of opinion are so deeply rooted that I don't see another option being practical or stable. Those for a free market will never be happy in a socialist state. Those for a socialist state are retarded, but would never be happy until they had a country of their own to run into the ground.


I fear a hard right country coming from this, with anyone with a dissenting view shot on sight, anyone with a different religion shot on sight, anyone with an "unapproved" skin color shot on sight, anyone with the wrong accent shot on sight. This is the right wing nuts in this nations ultamate goal, it's not to return to the Constitution, its in my opinion the complete and total destruction of the union, and the death of anyone who crosses them. It's my opinion that these "militas" as they call themselves are nothing of the sort, and as far as I am concerned are nothing better than street gangs. They have no respect for the Constitution, have no will to find a peaceful solution, but want only the violent solution, this is why they post so much disinformation. This is why no matter what good this government tries to do, they ignore it and claim that none of it happens.

reply to post by blood0fheroes
 



I would like to point out that the statement that "combat troops are all gone from Iraq" is erroneous.


I don't think that is the message, well, it's not supposed to be, everyone knows that there will be quite a number of our troops left in Iraq, it's a shame that they all can't come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do wish they would just drop this crap, but they won't. But our troops apparently aren't going to be actively engaging the enemy as before, and as I was trying to point out, this administration is NOT expanding the war in Iraq, but instead scaling it back.






[edit on 8/23/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I believe I understand the point you were trying to make, my point was that you are simply wrong. We have not been actively seeking engagements in Iraq since the new status of forces agreement went into effect in november of 2008, irregardless of the change in administration.

The current administration is neither expanding the war in Iraq, nor are they instead scaling it back. They are quietly maintaining it, while giving the illusion/delusion that it is coming to an end.

My belief is that the government has their sights still on Iran due to the tenuous nature of the oil/dollar, and with as many folk as we have in Iraq, and twice that number in Afghanistan, we are fixed perfectly on either side of Iran. Add into the mix the warships out at sea, and you begin to see why we arent leaving this AO any time soon.

There are three basic elements to winning any fight; Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action. We know we cannot just get the drop on Iran, so we are going to rely mostly on the first, and third because if you loose one you make up for it with the other two.

I think the best question is, what will be the instigating factor? Iran is not the shadowy boogy man that al qaeda was, so it will have to be a lie so big, no one would dare question it, and once again you will see patriotism under false pretenses hoisting flags at every home on the block.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I realized that I do have a tendency towards tangents, so to the OP, my apologies.

On the OP, my thoughts are as this: Using the idea of the militia is in reality skirting the main issue, as no one really wants to be "that guy" and come right out and say they are (ironically) FED up.
The issue, and what is at stake is this: Our country was founded on the idea that the governed do not get their freedom through consent of the government but rather, the other way around. That governments only exist through the consent of those governed.

This being the case, should government govern in such a way that the will of the people is not followed it is not only the inherent right, but also the duty of the people, to alter their government in any way they see fit so as to affect better their wishes, and liberties.....and asking nicely for the bad men to stop - so far - has had little effect.

I cite the recent history as example, wherein the "We the People" Foundation petitioned the government for redress of grievances, the government whose response was curtly, We have no obligation to respond to this.....



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


The consent of the governed is expressly given when each of us vote, now as I have said before, the solution is the removal of political parties. Not madmen with a phallic Jefferson fixation.

It's still my contention that these Militias as they stand now aren't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. I don't think that when they wrote Article 1 Section 8 that the very Militias they wanted for the protection of this nation would be bastardized and these people would train to kill Americans.

Because that is exactly what these Militias are doing, they are training to kill Americans. Say what you want about how the government is run, you may in fact be right about a great deal of it, but the fact remains that the people that work for the government, the people that work as police officers, as IRS auditors, as everything that makes up that government, are Americans, which makes those that are training to kill those Americans automatically domestic enemies.

The truth is, the government is a concept, just like America is a concept. It is my opinion that these Militias have no intention of attacking the government but the people that work in that government and those people are Americans.

That's why I have said that these people should just go ahead and join up with Al Quada because in the end they both have the same goal, the complete destruction of the United States, and to make sure to rack up as large of a body count as possible while they do it.

Which makes any plan of theirs suspect automatically, because if they have no conscience about killing their fellow Americans, they have no intention of restoring this union to it's humble roots. But just like an Islamic extremist group they want an America they choose, they want to bring about a Christian version of sharia law.


The group in question calls itself the "Hutaree"; its website says the term translates as "Christian warrior." And in keeping with that name, the material it has posted online reflects an outlook of violent religious confrontation. The Hutaree believe that acts of violence can bring about the final judgment prophesied in the Christian Bible — and therefore have been arming themselves to go to war with the Antichrist, "evil Jews," and Muslims. They have documented their training exercises in a series of YouTube videos. And they spell out the theological rationale for their actions on the "About Us" page on their website:


news.yahoo.com...

These people are the extreme end of the right wing spectrum. Not much different than the Taliban or Al Quada, different god, same goal.

True Militias on the other hand would respect their roll in the Constitution, (not just the Second Amendment) and work to fight against such a harsh version of America.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Discretion truly is the better part of valor, and to that sentiment I agree whole-heartedly. We absolutely must exhaust all other options, otherwise action would descend into to true madness. However, there must come a time for diplomacy to draw to a close. The people must be made fully aware of the nature of their situation, and rise to draw their "line in the sand". At some point, the people must say This is it! No Further! Encroach at your own peril!

There is a significant difference between preparing, and planning. Generally when one plans on taking action, they carry out that action. The recent growth of militias, or in other terms somewhat organized, armed, citizens are preparing, not planning. In my opinion, this is largely because more and more people are beginning to realize that asking nicely that the government back off is an exercise in futility. The only option many see left is to calmly load the rifle, round by round and say Can you hear me now? Good.

Basically, I appreciate your concern, however I think you are perhaps over reacting. The majority of people are not yet inflamed to the point of planning.

Rationality can be fleeting when tempers flare, which is why as much as much as we need people with the testicular fortitude to stand up and draw that line in the sand, we need also, every bit as much, people like you who say "Whoa now, how's about we try and talk this out first?" Hopefully, we can find that middle ground of calm, rational, well armed, people who are articulate enough to convince the masses to first become aware and second to take action by exhausting all means diplomatic.

If that fails.....?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 



If that fails.....?


Planing to fail, leads to failure.

I think that the idea of asking our government to back off is ill conceived too. You do not ask your employees to work the way you want them to, you tell them to work the way you want them to, if they do not work the way you want them to, you fire the employee. You replace them with another employee that you hope will work.

There is not a good quick fix to this problem, the problem with this federal government overstepping their bounds is something that has to be fixed over time, it's not a question of "Ok, now the federal government will comply with our wishes today or tomorrow a bunch of nuts are going to start blowing away people" That doesn't work.

People in this country do have to take our government back, it's going to take decades for it to be fixed right, and the American people cannot become complacent about it. Every election, every bill, every single thing the government does has to be scrutinized, looked over, bitched about, debated, and the people have to take a constant active roll in their government. If an elected person chooses to go against the will of their constituency, that constituencies job is to replace that person in the next election, even if the elected official goes against their constituencies wishes once, that person must be replaced.

What this does is make's the government afraid of the people, which the government should always be afraid of the people.

You aren't going to get that fear with a bunch of domestic terrorists. The only thing that will solve is the further removal of our rights.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   


The consent of the governed is expressly given when each of us vote


No, it is a God-given right or "natural right" to give consent to the government to govern. The Constitution just verifies this.



It's still my contention that these Militias as they stand now aren't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. I don't think that when they wrote Article 1 Section 8 that the very Militias they wanted for the protection of this nation would be bastardized and these people would train to kill Americans.


Wrong. Its exactly what the framers wanted. This is your delusional interpretation on the Consitution and Declaration of Independence. If they didnt want the common folk to be armed and come together as an armed military organization, they wouldnt have verified their right to alter or abolish the government if they deem necessary in the Declaration of Independence.


Because that is exactly what these Militias are doing, they are training to kill Americans. Say what you want about how the government is run, you may in fact be right about a great deal of it, but the fact remains that the people that work for the government, the people that work as police officers, as IRS auditors, as everything that makes up that government, are Americans, which makes those that are training to kill those Americans automatically domestic enemies.


You're categorizing people in two groups. Right and left. Categorizing or labeling people or groups is a propagandist tool to discredit them. Such slander and ludicrous accusations.


The truth is, the government is a concept, just like America is a concept. It is my opinion that these Militias have no intention of attacking the government but the people that work in that government and those people are Americans.


Wow.
did you even read what you just said? PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! do you think its just a magical machine that runs itself?


That's why I have said that these people should just go ahead and join up with Al Quada because in the end they both have the same goal, the complete destruction of the United States, and to make sure to rack up as large of a body count as possible while they do it.


More wild accusations and emotional irrational thought.

D R A M A Q U E E N


These people are the extreme end of the right wing spectrum. Not much different than the Taliban or Al Quada, different god, same goal.


These people were back boonie cowboy wannabies. Eight clowns running around with guns playing cowboys is not an organized militia and especially does not represent REAL militias nationwide. Plus, the whole bust was a complete charade to smear militias. They were a joke and the federal authorities even ADMITTED they didnt have explosives UNTIL after the undercover FBI agent SHOWED them how to build them. Only THEN were they arrested. Propaganda at its finest.






[edit on 23-8-2010 by AzoriaCorp]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wow can one really be this stupid???... We're building 50 bases over there and since Obama said were bringing combat troops home you believe him... Sigh! Stupid is as stupid does!.... Geeze speaking of lapping up Dog slop

And here is a dozen videos of how Obama says he will end the Iraq war and not build any permanent bases blah blah pick any of them
www.youtube.co...


But he claims he's pulled out the combat troops and the brainwashed zombie apologist fall all over themselves even though THE TROOPS STAYING IN IRAQ HAVE COMBAT CAPABILITIES. But hey we will just not call them combat troops and the dummies who support me will lap it up like dog slop says obama....


The complete and utter stupidity of people who put thier faith and trust in politicians left or right never ceases to amaze me! But your ilk continues to twist facts lie etc and pat themselves on the back... Sigh!

[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





It's still my contention that these Militias as they stand now aren't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. I don't think that when they wrote Article 1 Section 8 that the very Militias they wanted for the protection of this nation would be bastardized and these people would train to kill Americans.


Then why don't you post the evidence and quotes of what the the framers had in mind? They left us a ton of writings illustrating thier intentions and militias were specifically to protect from tyrannical governments first and foremost, hello they just fought a war to free themselves from tyrannical government...Ya think..? But no you have not read history you just want to read your own BS ideas into everything.

Here I'll do some of your work for you ( not that it will do you any good but for the benefit of others):

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) [responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty]" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Of course the troops there have 'combat capabilities'. It's the military, what do you think a military is formed for? Planting flowers?
This issue is that there are no longer combat operations in effect in Iraq, thus the only remaining 'combat specific' troops there are still advising the Iraqi military and police (which still desperately need our training).



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gainsayer
Of course the troops there have 'combat capabilities'. It's the military, what do you think a military is formed for? Planting flowers?
This issue is that there are no longer combat operations in effect in Iraq, thus the only remaining 'combat specific' troops there are still advising the Iraqi military and police (which still desperately need our training).


Wow another genius...


How come the mentally challenged continue to ignore the fact they we are building fifty permanent bases over there... And if you think combat operations have ceased and will cease as long as we have one troop over there I have some Florida Everglades land I'd like to interest you in...


[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You're the one stating obvious drivel about "troops having combat capabilities". Ooooh reeeally??!!

It's the mission of those troops that is key, and that mission is no longer combat operations. If you wish to debate the military strategy of the US, by all means. The construction of such bases and installations shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. What, you really thought that the war in Iraq was for chemical weapons? Or oil? LOL!

Jumpstart a democracy in the middle east, and strategic placement of US military assets to stem any tide of Islamic fundamentalism from unifying the region. It's pretty obvious.

Actually, I'd like a link to these bases and installations that are supposedly going up. Granted, it's been a year and a half since I was last in Iraq, but I still have several friends over there. The way it was then, and the way it is now, is the US is consolidating and shutting down all it's major Forward Operating Bases. I could give you names of the bases if you wished...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gainsayer]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gainsayer]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gainsayer
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You're the one stating obvious drivel about "troops having combat capabilities". obviously

It's the mission of those troops that is key, and that mission is no longer combat operations.


The mission is the same as it has always been to control the oil fields for the politically connected oil cartels and kill anyone that gets in thier way. Doesn't matter what spin is put on it as far as the military presence there and this despite the fact Obama promised no permanent bases there. The fact remains The troops are there to kick ass and take names if anyone challenges the oil dominance despite the mentally challenged obama acolytes extreme denial.



Jumpstart a democracy in the middle east, and strategic placement of US military assets to stem any tide of Islamic fundamentalism from unifying the region. It's pretty obvious.


Watch much TV do ya??


[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join