• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Check out this crack pot...

WheelGun

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
276
Location
Delaware County, New York, USA
imported post

The militias were community organizations of armed men. Some practiced together often, some did not. Quality and availability of equipment varied.

They prepared to fight enemies that in some cases were different from those we face today (British, American Indians) and in some cases not that different (the lawless amongst our own).

The militias of the modern 'militia movement' (the Turner Diaries people) are a shadowy bunch, some are solidly amongst the 'hate groups' in society, some are little more than well armed happy backwoods rednecks.

They are not the militia mentioned in the Constitution. The term militia today refers to all law abiding adult citizens whom could possibly take up arms in defense of the Constitution.

The militia is the Constitution's way of protecting itself.

The concept of the militia has been neglected, but should never be left to die.If it does, our Constitution will surely follow.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

That's like saying that guns created the Columbine massacre. You are gonna have a cuckoo in every bunch; the idea is you keep an eye on that guy and stop him before he does something stupid. Those that are off the deep end don't represent the whole group. If some guy went out and shot up a local school then said he was from OCDO......that doesn't make all of us a school shooting, hate loving bunch of wackos. It makes him the wacko trying to associate with the rest of us to get some kind of credibility for his actions. If we were smart, we'd deny any and all association with that nutjob and make sure it was clear we decried his actions to the highest degree.

You are buying into the leftist media ideal that "militias are dangerous" and "full of weirdos just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people". It's just not true. When pressed for examples for your claims and for proof of your statements, you get agitated and start calling names and basically just blow your stack. I'm telling you, just let it go before you discredit yourself any more than you already have.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
You are buying into the leftist media ideal that "militias are dangerous" and "full of weirdos just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people".



LOL Because that IS true in some, if not most, cases. Get your head out of the sand, man.


And stop saying "leftist media." It makes no sense for media owned by mega-corporations to be anything but to theright, where all the mega-corporations are.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

WheelGun wrote:
The militias were community organizations of armed men. Some practiced together often, some did not. Quality and availability of equipment varied.

They prepared to fight enemies that in some cases were different from those we face today (British, American Indians) and in some cases not that different (the lawless amongst our own).

The militias of the modern 'militia movement' (the Turner Diaries people) are a shadowy bunch, some are solidly amongst the 'hate groups' in society, some are little more than well armed happy backwoods rednecks.

They are not the militia mentioned in the Constitution. The term militia today refers to all law abiding adult citizens whom could possibly take up arms in defense of the Constitution.

The militia is the Constitution's way of protecting itself.

The concept of the militia has been neglected, but should never be left to die.If it does, our Constitution will surely follow.
There are those who call themselves "militia" but obviously aren't. Neo Nazi groups, etc........to lump these people in with those are coming together in common need to protect the Constitution and prepare for the eventuality of SHTF is to discredit them and what they are doing.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Ok, we have three basic types of "militia".

The historical Militia which was organized under local laws and answerable to civil authority. Much like the Swiss system on which it was patterned. This reduced the need for a large standing army, and kept military power spread around between the national, state, and local governments, and the people.

The nutters.

People who train together and prepare for possible SHTF. I cannot fathom why group three would attempt to lump themselves with group one, of which they clearly are not, or group two of which I would hope they are not. When you start organizing along military lines, while not actually being a true military force, something is wrong. We are all the "unorganized" militia. That is to say, liable for militia or military duty according state and federal laws among other things.

To me, the nutters always start when a formal militia unit is drawn up outside of the normal channels established for a militia.

The myth of the militia is a dangerous thing. I practice and train with friends all the time. We don't give ourselves ranks, or call ourselves The First Thurston County Rifles or some such crap like that. Why? Because we are not a freaking militia.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

WheelGun wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
"just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people".
Hey, I've met a few here or there on military bases who would fit the above description. It is up to the leaders to channel the energy properly.
Like I said, there are always going to be a few that are off the deep end and flock to these kind of things. You are right, it is up to the leaders to make sure they are kept in line or you get rid of them. The problem is really when the leader is one of these nutcases. Then you get the people with compounds in Idaho spewing Neo Nazi BS. That's where militias get the bad names nowadays. Too bad many believe everything the liberal media puts in the papers.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Insulted Jefferson? That's a new one on me. And I have no problem with the militia, so long as it's not a bunch of wannabes hiding in their bunker quoting from the Turner Diaries. The usually forgotten or ignored fact, is that the militia of old was specifically charted by the state or local government. They were responsible to civil authority. The modern militias are not. Organizing along military lines, claiming to be a military unit, without being answerable to civil authorities is not what the founders had in mind. One is a militia that serves to protect the state and spreads military power among the people. The other is rabble.
Josh Sugarmann couldn't have said it better.
 

WheelGun

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
276
Location
Delaware County, New York, USA
imported post

I've made films. I've watched films. I could go to any range with a decent video rig and produce either a terribly anti-gun diatribe or a pro-gun safety film with the same subject material.

Close-up of melons exploding. Montage of rusted fenders, shot-up beer cans, strange sayings on t-shirts. Un-policed brass and shotgun shells laying around. Stop at a redneck house and grab apicture of a rebel flag. Voice over of murder and violence statistics. Banjo music plays over.

Close-up of an instructor with an NRA logo onhis shirt, standing in a clean, well lit classroom. A pretty girl listening intently to a safety lesson sitting next to her decent-looking, well groomed dad. A few US MARINES and US ARMY bumper stickers in the parking lot affixed to shiny Dodge Durangos. Voice over ofJeff Cooper's safety rules.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
Ok, we have three basic types of "militia".

The historical Militia which was organized under local laws and answerable to civil authority. Much like the Swiss system on which it was patterned. This reduced the need for a large standing army, and kept military power spread around between the national, state, and local governments, and the people.

The nutters.

People who train together and prepare for possible SHTF. I cannot fathom why group three would attempt to lump themselves with group one, of which they clearly are not, or group two of which I would hope they are not. When you start organizing along military lines, while not actually being a true military force, something is wrong. We are all the "unorganized" militia. That is to say, liable for militia or military duty according state and federal laws among other things.

To me, the nutters always start when a formal militia unit is drawn up outside of the normal channels established for a militia.

The myth of the militia is a dangerous thing. I practice and train with friends all the time. We don't give ourselves ranks, or call ourselves The First Thurston County Rifles or some such crap like that. Why? Because we are not a freaking militia.
SV, this is the best post I've seen from you all week. State the facts and let them speak for themselves. You don't need to respond to someone else attacking you with an attack of your own. That's why many long time posters on OCDO have left; because the forum is now filled with endless pages of back and forth bickering that doesn't go anywhere, until the post is inevitably locked. Then it just starts again a day or two later in another thread. Enough already. Say your piece and let it stand on it's own merits. Respond to replies with reasoned, well though out replies of your own. THAT is worthwhile reading.

That being said, the people in group three is what I'm speaking of. Many of them do call themselves militia. While they may not meet the exact definition of a militia, if they want to be one, who cares? You are arguing over semantics. The "myth" behind militias wouldn't BE dangerous if people weren't propogating it and giving it credit. You are doing exactly that with your current attitude. If you think it's stupid to say you are part of a militia then say that, RESPECTFULLY, and move on. I respectfully disagree with your point of view on this topic. If I want to say I'm part of a local militia, so be it. This stereotyping of militia members as "redneck, inbred hicks looking for an excuse to follow in Timothy McVeigh's footsteps" is absolute bunk.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

If we had a constitutional government, there would be no Department of the Army. There would be no standing army nor any standing National Guard units. Wars would be "declared" if they were to be fought and market and social controls would be far and few between.

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizensto provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

How does a militia become well trained? How do ordinary citizens keep up their militia skills? They train together as a community. Many of those so called "crackpots" are just neighbors training together as the Constitution allows.

Well Regulated does not = well controlled by government.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789 when the second amendment was penned. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

WheelGun wrote:
The militias of the modern 'militia movement' (the Turner Diaries people) are a shadowy bunch, some are solidly amongst the 'hate groups' in society,
"Hate groups?"

Shame on you. That's SPLC attack tactics.

They are not the militia mentioned in the Constitution.
Where anyone we don't like or trust = "not the militia mentioned in the Constitution."

Come on. You must admit that even a KKK'er can protect his country against invaders. You must concede that even a skinhead is impacted by a devalued currency and an unrepayable national debt.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

If there is one thing the Founding Fathers understood, it's that bigger government does not equal better government. I can't imagine them thinking that having the militias under government control would be better for the people.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
If there is one thing the Founding Fathers understood, it's that bigger government does not equal better government. I can't imagine them thinking that having the militias under government control would be better for the people.
The Constitution makes it clear that militias are only to be under government control during a war.

The only branch that has a constitutional mandate for permanenceis the Navy.

The founders were abundantly clear on this subject and its a shame that those who want to manipulate the meaning for some reason ignore the founders very clear words.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
I can't imagine them thinking that having the militias under government control would be better for the people.
Very well said. The essence of the militia is that it is completely
unaccountable to civil authority. Defence of the country is not the same as defence of the government.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

US Constitution: Article I, Section 8 wrote:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
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;
Straight from the horse's mouth. Technically they could keep a standing army but they can't fund it for longer than two years. As well the last power mentions that Congress only had the authority to provide for the militia and set rules for when they may be employed by the United States and that the states kept the power to appoint officers.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
This would seem to be contrary to many people's interpretation of the constitution as their idea of a militia is to take over the government.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

PT111 wrote:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
This would seem to be contrary to many people's interpretation of the constitution as their idea of a militia is to take over the government.
The unspoken rule of the Constitution is that sometimes the insurrectionists should win.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
You are buying into the leftist media ideal that "militias are dangerous" and "full of weirdos just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people".



LOL Because that IS true in some, if not most, cases. Get your head out of the sand, man.


And stop saying "leftist media." It makes no sense for media owned by mega-corporations to be anything but to theright, where all the mega-corporations are.
I see nothing wrong with militias being 'crazy and militant.' Nothing else has worked to put our government in its place, we should stop deriding them and turn em loose.
 
Top