Obama is planning a million man militia! - Page 6
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

Thread: Obama is planning a million man militia!

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    When I hear the term militia, I think of an organization more like the Minutemen, who are not under the control of or receiving any money from, any government agency. Blackwater does not fit that definition in any way.

    Exactly my point. What Obama is talking about is not what the Constitutioin was talking about in the 2nd Amendment.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Exactly my point. What Obama is talking about is not what the Constitutioin was talking about in the 2nd Amendment.
    Whatever mention Obama made of this was just a meaningless talking point from a man who rose to the highest office in the land by making lots of them.

  4. #53
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Exactly my point. What Obama is talking about is not what the Constitutioin was talking about in the 2nd Amendment.
    The militia our founding fathers discussed would be the bunch of us and other like-minded souls banding together to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, not a government organized group. The signers of the Declaration and the delegates to the Constitutional Congress were throwing off, or had just thrown off rule enforced by a government's army. They didn't want a strong standing army, just a core group the militia could join with for the security of the nation.

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    The militia our founding fathers discussed would be the bunch of us and other like-minded souls banding together to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, not a government organized group. The signers of the Declaration and the delegates to the Constitutional Congress were throwing off, or had just thrown off rule enforced by a government's army. They didn't want a strong standing army, just a core group the militia could join with for the security of the nation.
    I couldn't have said it better. Exactly what I was thinking.

  6. #55
    gpbarth Guest
    "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."

    The anti-gun groups focus on the first part (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...), but it is the next part that provides the freedom and right - "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not say anything about "people of the militia" or "people called into a militia" or "people forming a militia." It says the right of the people - period - to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I do think that we can safely concur that these "people" are the citizens of the United States. IOW - US! Common sense would conclude that the security of this country would be assured if its populace was armed and able to fight back against aggressors (as it did in the American Revolution).

    I rest my case, your honor!

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by gpbarth View Post
    "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."

    The anti-gun groups focus on the first part (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...), but it is the next part that provides the freedom and right - "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not say anything about "people of the militia" or "people called into a militia" or "people forming a militia." It says the right of the people - period - to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I do think that we can safely concur that these "people" are the citizens of the United States. IOW - US! Common sense would conclude that the security of this country would be assured if its populace was armed and able to fight back against aggressors (as it did in the American Revolution).

    I rest my case, your honor!
    Let me just add that it was no mistake that the words "militia" and "people" were used seemingly interchangeably. That's because the "people" are the militia!

  8. #57
    You're being completely serious here? Then you scare me. Tell me, who is going to run this civilian police force if not the federal government? If the president-ELECT is promoting it, does that tell you something? He ain't the local mayor, is he?

    You loved the FBI, you loved Homeland Security, you loved the TSA, you'll really love a national police force, with military powers. Have you ever heard of, or read about, or seen, martial law? Are you familiar with Posse Commitatus? And do you have any idea what "states rights" are? Have YOU read the Constitution? States rights trump federal rights, yet you would be very comfortable allowing a national police force to march into your town and declare that they are the law. Jeez!
    See, this is what I meant about politely answer my question. No I'm not familiar with Posse Committatus, yes I've heard of martial law, and yes, I've read the Constitution, where a militia of citizens is discussed.

    Even within states, police cannot cross city limits and county lines to enforce laws
    Yes they can. In most states, although maybe not Florida, police officers are commissioned by the state after they attend a state academy, so they have jurisdiction throughout the state. Some departments have policies discouraging officers from policing outside their assigned city or county area, but it's not forbidden or illegal.

    The militia our founding fathers discussed would be the bunch of us and other like-minded souls banding together to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, not a government organized group. The signers of the Declaration and the delegates to the Constitutional Congress were throwing off, or had just thrown off rule enforced by a government's army. They didn't want a strong standing army, just a core group the militia could join with for the security of the nation.
    This is what I was thinking of when I heard about a national miiltia. Again, I ask, what's wrong with this? Sounds like a pretty good thing to me.

    Maybe they could even:
    actively enforce the laws we have, and removing the threats from our streets effectively.
    since many areas are cutting police services due to tightening budgets.
    Husky Girl

  9. #58
    I am all for every man, (and woman) being armed and prepared to defend our country against aggressors both foreign and domestic. We all should be ready at all times. I am against a national gestapo stile force being organize and run and funded by a Marxist President.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Husky Girl View Post
    See, this is what I meant about politely answer my question. No I'm not familiar with Posse Committatus, yes I've heard of martial law, and yes, I've read the Constitution, where a militia of citizens is discussed.



    Yes they can. In most states, although maybe not Florida, police officers are commissioned by the state after they attend a state academy, so they have jurisdiction throughout the state. Some departments have policies discouraging officers from policing outside their assigned city or county area, but it's not forbidden or illegal.



    This is what I was thinking of when I heard about a national miiltia. Again, I ask, what's wrong with this? Sounds like a pretty good thing to me.

    Maybe they could even:

    since many areas are cutting police services due to tightening budgets.

    I find it hard to believe that you're a former LEO and don't know what "Posse Committatus" is. I'll give you a clue, what a lot of people do when they don't know a term used on teh internet, they "Google" it.

    As for police crossing into neighboring jurisdictions, maybe your former employer allowed it, but there are many jurisdictions that I know of that often have whizzing contests, and crossing the jurisdictional line is an act of aggression.

    Again, as a former LEO, I don't believe that you cannot figure out why it would be bad for us. For one thing, there's got to be a way to pay for this new "police force". Then there's the issue of the great possibility of the blatant violation of our civil rights. I could go on and on, but I'm sure that there are many places you could do some research and figure out why this is bad.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  11. #60
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast