# thoughts on the militia movement



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

I am not here to change a single persons opinion as i have not the right to do so. in a short time i have seen many that have a open sense of hate towards the idea of militia's from all across the board. From where i live to online there is a overwhelming sense of distrust and hate attached to the militia movement. I ask simply why is that?

I can understand that for many years now popular media and a few bad apples have stained the idea of the militia in the common mans eyes to a degree, but to the level animosity i see on the news, in books, in general day to day is staggering. How is it that a founding and fundamental right we as Americans are afforded can become so repulsed by the communities it is sworn to protect? In truth we are all allowed our own views on every matter, but i'm just trying to see if i can get to the heart of this issue and see what pains my fellow citizens...

Looking forward to a knowledgeable back and forth with you all.

Good days and good tidings to you all


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

I am not against a militia. Personally, I think here lately it is good to have them around. Although I'm not sure what kind of a difference they will make..


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Cause nobody wants to be around a bunch of half cocked immature wannabes running around in a paramilitary organization.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

Arizona Infidel said:


> Cause nobody wants to be around a bunch of half cocked immature wannabes running around in a paramilitary organization.


I agree with you there Arizona, but how do you separate the nuts from the people who could make a real difference in a militia? Does the militia have an entrance exam, or psyc evaluation? That's the problem with militias, you have no idea who is in them.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Remember the OKC bombing? anymore questions?


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> Cause nobody wants to be around a bunch of half cocked immature wannabes running around in a paramilitary organization.


I know that many militia movements actually have an entry examination period, along with a probationary period before one can even be a real member. Does it guarantee that they won't have bad seeds? Nope, but it'd be no real difference in what occurs when you join the military.

That said, I'm totally for militia movements, as they're ultimately organizations with the purpose to protect and help their communities when/if the time comes. It's best to have at least some loose knit structure in place in case anything did go down, makes it a bit easier for them to operate AND for those non-militia members to rally behind.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

My two pieces of zinc...

I have nothing against a militia. What I am not going to do is discuss it in any depth on the internet.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

Denton said:


> My two pieces of zinc...
> 
> I have nothing against a militia. What I am not going to do is discuss it in any depth on the internet.


Best advice yet.


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Remember the OKC bombing? anymore questions?


we could also bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge "which if i may add were handled horribly by law enforcement each time" , but the fact is none of those had militia's involvement, these people were of the sovereign citizen ideology. the OKC bomber was sympathetic to the militia's idea but he was also a raving nut ball, one rotten apple spoiling the bunch i guess.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I would think by now you'd realize this community is very distrustful of people who want to discuss certain things. I would also think you can understand this. I would also think that those in your area who are here would have already contacted you via PM. This being the case, is it your intention to have this community flagged?


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

*same is same*



Arizona Infidel said:


> Cause nobody wants to be around a bunch of half cocked immature wannabes running around in a paramilitary organization.


The entire worlds militaries for any country are made up of the same cross section of the population, there is no more legitimacy instilled because the government that has lost it's sense of direction is calling the shots.


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

@Denton- that is not my intention at all, if the topic does truly make you all uncomfortable my sincerest apologies. i am simply speaking my mind and looking for stimulating conversations as you might guess "most" in my state are so liberal blue their almost communist red... and never want to talk about anything deeper then celebrity gossip.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

The phenomena of which you speak is correct. The impression of the modern "militia" is a negative one. You can thank the likes of Timmothy McVeigh for his heavy contribution in killed over a 100 people for this, but please don't take that as my condemnation. I am merely say you can thank him (McVeigh) for this not me. The fact is the lame stream / leftist / anti gun media was all too happy to use McVeigh as a member of a modern militia and condemn anyone that would participate in "one" as part of the lunatic fringe. When our main stream media goes on a kick its hard to beat. Look back 20 years and see how homosexuals were viewed and think back then - would our nation fornicate over a biblical word (Marriage) and apply it too them just 20 years later? That was done with a calculated measure of effort that includes media, academia, government, and part of media being hollywood, writers, magazines, bloggers, and other publishers. Just as they made anyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot they made anyone part of a militia a pariah (sp). This same effort is beginning right now - on guns. Don't kid yourself, watch for it, we had a producer of movies say last week he plans to offer up a film to make anyone in the NRA wish they were dead, a governor of NY saying those who like assault weapons don't belong in his state, the "outing" of those with CCW's in counties by map (media) and the list will go on.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

sparkyprep said:


> I agree with you there Arizona, but how do you separate the nuts from the people who could make a real difference in a militia? Does the militia have an entrance exam, or psyc evaluation? That's the problem with militias, you have no idea who is in them.


How do you separate the nuts? I dunno, but maybe a bunch of fruits running around Van Nuys California or other suburbs in digital camo is a tipoff? 
Why are you wearing camouflage? What is the purpose of camouflage and is that purpose being realized in the burbs? Or do you stick out like a sore thumb?


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

I have no interest in taking orders from anyone, been there done that, I do not trust those who do, or those who wish to give those orders.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

CA Codes (pen:11460)


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

This ranks up there with US Immigration laws, otherwise the people of occupy oakland would just be getting out of jail.



Mish said:


> CA Codes (pen:11460)


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> How do you separate the nuts? I dunno, but maybe a bunch of fruits running around Van Nuys California or other suburbs in digital camo is a tipoff?
> Why are you wearing camouflage? What is the purpose of camouflage and is that purpose being realized in the burbs? Or do you stick out like a sore thumb?


i ask a simple question to which you are not giving an answer too, the only thing you are doing is making a low ball attempt at baiting and sadly for you it wont work infidel. you have your opinion of myself and my group and that's absolutely fine as is your right, it is however my right to ignore it as you are not providing anything to the conversation except name call and acting like a child. so say what you will it wont bother me in the slightest as i have my conviction and belief that i am attempting to do what is best for my community.

best wishes in all that you do... 
sincerely LANCERCO001


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

Mish said:


> CA Codes (pen:11460)


sorry for double post but i have a question on this... what about shooting teams or gun clubs. i mean no explosives are used, but it still has 4 or more members preforming training to improve shot performance and trying to improve general fundamentals of long distance shooting as well as clays and all other forms of competition shooting. are these types of groups still subject to fine or imprisonment?


----------



## Infidel (Dec 22, 2012)

> (a) Any two or more persons who assemble *as a paramilitary
> organization *for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
> punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
> or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
> both that fine and imprisonment.


The paramilitary organization bit is where they get you.

-Infidel


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

LANCERCO001 said:


> i ask a simple question to which you are not giving an answer too, the only thing you are doing is making a low ball attempt at baiting and sadly for you it wont work infidel. you have your opinion of myself and my group and that's absolutely fine as is your right, it is however my right to ignore it as you are not providing anything to the conversation except name call and acting like a child. so say what you will it wont bother me in the slightest as i have my conviction and belief that i am attempting to do what is best for my community.
> 
> best wishes in all that you do...
> sincerely LANCERCO001


If you'd pay attention you would realize that the post you quoted was in response to an entirely different person. NOT YOU. 
So it would appear that attention to detail isn't the strong point of the " commanding officer" of the lancer militia.
Let me also point out what another poster asked. Is your purpose to bring unwanted scrutiny to this forum?


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

I firmly believe militias are protected under the First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of association. Nuff said.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Infidel said:


> The paramilitary organization bit is where they get you.
> 
> -Infidel


I think I'll stay away from militias in Ca. =)


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Perception is everything. You need to work on all the positive press you can get. That being said one oh shit can wipe away a whole bunch of atta-boys. Nearly all the press on any militia has been negative so this is a mountain to climb.

I neither like or dislike militias. I have no desire to become a member. I tend to stay more to myself although I do pretty will in group settings. I learned about organizations about 40 years ago. I saw everything change for the worse in a very short time. Let's just say that when I left that organization it was not on real good terms. But then, I'm really good at pissing people off when I've a mind to.



Denton said:


> My two pieces of zinc...
> 
> I have nothing against a militia. What I am not going to do is discuss it in any depth on the internet.


I couldn't agree more. Remember Miranda? What you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> How do you separate the nuts? I dunno, but maybe a bunch of fruits running around *Van Nuys* California or other suburbs in digital camo is a tipoff?
> Why are you wearing camouflage? What is the purpose of camouflage and is that purpose being realized in the burbs? Or do you stick out like a sore thumb?


Gee i wonder who is the only person with Van Nuys as their... oh wait you almost got me there. Nice try Arizona but you'll have to try a little harder if you wish to bait me into arguing with you. Also to answer your other questions simply look back at post #12 as i really don't care to repeat myself.


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

LANCERCO001 said:


> I am not here to change a single persons opinion as i have not the right to do so. in a short time i have seen many that have a open sense of hate towards the idea of militia's from all across the board. From where i live to online there is a overwhelming sense of distrust and hate attached to the militia movement. I ask simply why is that?
> 
> I can understand that for many years now popular media and a few bad apples have stained the idea of the militia in the common mans eyes to a degree, but to the level animosity i see on the news, in books, in general day to day is staggering. How is it that a founding and fundamental right we as Americans are afforded can become so repulsed by the communities it is sworn to protect? In truth we are all allowed our own views on every matter, but i'm just trying to see if i can get to the heart of this issue and see what pains my fellow citizens...
> 
> ...


I have been asked by a few of militia groups to come and hold training days. And to be honest it seamed to me that a couple were a bit on the nuts side of things. I think this is the experience of many who have had contact with such groups. I refused to train a couple and did train one group that then wrote me a bad check I have yet to collect. So my experience with militia has not been a good one.


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

LANCERCO001 said:


> @Denton- that is not my intention at all, if the topic does truly make you all uncomfortable my sincerest apologies. i am simply speaking my mind and looking for stimulating conversations as you might guess "most" in my state are so liberal blue their almost communist red... and never want to talk about anything deeper then celebrity gossip.


With the current political climate anyone with a reasonable intelligence level would look at this in such a light as Denton expressed. Add that with the fact you are pretty new to this forum thus we know little about who you are. And then consider the IRS and its activities against those whom they disagree with politically and other information our government has been collecting and you will clearly see why we distrust such posts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

BamaBoy101 said:


> With the current political climate anyone with a reasonable intelligence level would look at this in such a light as Denton expressed. Add that with the fact you are pretty new to this forum thus we know little about who you are. And then consider the IRS and its activities against those whom they disagree with politically and other information our government has been collecting and you will clearly see why we distrust such posts.


It is 0250, and there is no good reason for us the be standing last watch, yet you are still up. Go to sleep!


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Denton said:


> It is 0250, and there is no good reason for us the be standing last watch, yet you are still up. Go to sleep!


It is 4 am here, party in residence went to like close to 2am quiet hours start at 1 am.. hopefully be sleeping soon.

IMO militias are primarily a US concept... there use to be a militia in Canada every male was part of it you know they had and still have firing ranges in some schools use to do the drills right in the schools. WWI rolled around and the military streamlined training to be centralized and of course then people were either in the army navy or air force pretty much other groups too.. the general militia started its long road to regularization - conscription happened in WWI, the issue of conscription was a soft spot in quebec, so the practice was more or less ended after WWII perhaps just cause it wasn't needed anymore. None the less the days of service to the queen have been softened up much like the state militias service to the constitution. None the less the militia is a great force to present an alternative for those who do not wish to be in the national gaurd or other streams or arn't qualified for them.

Militias fall under way more scrutiny up here and they arn't as well known outside the intelligence groups like csis - they are labled extremists. As soon as you have militants and extremist together that is bad news.

None the less a prepper ain't an extremist in any sense of the word, it is someone who has taken government recommendation to prepare for emergencies - sure they may prepare a little more than just the 72 hour survival pack but it ain't nothing the government ain't doing. Why is it the public shouldn't protect itself like the civilian government agencies do? Preppers most of the time are still no where near as extreme as the government, the government is far more extreme and far more militant. The use of force including deadly force by police is far more common than that by preppers.

None the less I encourage anyone to be responsible and look out for their own and the publics safety and to train to do that, and that is what the militia is about. I am for empowering the public and the militia is a tool of public empowerment.

People can teach themselves the stuff but the militia teaches team work, and the importance of community, comradery and common objective.

Now ideology is another matter. Its the governments job to educate people, it is them that is failing to provide the starting point so that cult practices don't alienate common sense. That isn't the militia, nor the militarys job. People who commit crimes come from all walks of lives, and I bet there are way fewer militia members who commit crimes than members of the general public.. that is opposite what you'd expect but militias lower the likelyhood of criminal activity not increase it.

As far as the US is concerned, if you can be drafted into service, why wait to prepare to be drafted, isn't it better to be ready to serve when required, than to wait until there is so great a threat that a draft is required?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I just feel that the word Militia has a bad rap. Can we help it? Can we debate it all night? Maybe, and Im no specialist, but maybe you should just call it a group. But, alas, its your duck. ( Some will know what that means).


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Denton, Im on watch until relieved. Usaully around 5;45 am my time. I got this. I will hold down the forum, unless some "anti-forum video" comes out, and I get murdered.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I am neither for or against Militia's generally, but there are some that I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. Personally, after spending 20 years in the U.S. Army I would not be interested in joining a group of amateurs. 

There is one thing, if you and a say 10 or 20 other people are planning on joining together if the SHTF, would that be a Militia?


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

There is probably a fine line between a militia group & a family group. People banded together to protect themselves & what they have. Just as important as what a group plans to do to protect itself is how it plans to do it.

And beware of any group that the "leaders" are saling stuff. JMO


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

sparkyprep said:


> I agree with you there Arizona, but how do you separate the nuts from the people who could make a real difference in a militia? Does the militia have an entrance exam, or psyc evaluation? That's the problem with militias, you have no idea who is in them.


 What is and is not a Militia is hard to define. A group of good citizens loosely organized to provide common defense and security is one thing.
A hard core group bent on taking power is another.
You judge any group by the content of character of those they put before you as leaders. Judge by actions not words.
A militia should be focused on common defense not a quest for power there is a big difference.
Some draw a comparison between militia and vigilantly justice while there are extreme conditions that may require their use .
The must not be allowed to take on a life of their own or they become the problem. Power is addictive.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

LANCERCO001 said:


> I am not here to change a single persons opinion as i have not the right to do so. in a short time i have seen many that have a open sense of hate towards the idea of militia's from all across the board. From where i live to online there is a overwhelming sense of distrust and hate attached to the militia movement. I ask simply why is that?
> 
> I can understand that for many years now popular media and a few bad apples have stained the idea of the militia in the common mans eyes to a degree, but to the level animosity i see on the news, in books, in general day to day is staggering. How is it that a founding and fundamental right we as Americans are afforded can become so repulsed by the communities it is sworn to protect? In truth we are all allowed our own views on every matter, but i'm just trying to see if i can get to the heart of this issue and see what pains my fellow citizens...
> 
> ...


If you want a good conversation about militia groups, try talking to someone who has actually built a militia and had to watch the government with its infiltrators destroy it:

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

Now bear in mind, the subject of the story, Joe Sims, is STILL IN THE MILITIA. Every unit this man has infiltrated saw their leadership end up in prison or flipped to work for the LEOs. Those who_ resisted_ his overtures have been shunned by the masses within the militia world. Every unit in the Militia of Georgia save of the founding three units were hoodwinked by one individual and all but the three founding units have fallen by the wayside (for the most part.)

One group that still is active on the net broke from the original Militia of Georgia and tried to pander their half cocked ideas. Their chaplain ended up trying to take over a courthouse in Tennessee and got himself in a lot of legal trouble:

FBI ? Militia Extremist Sentenced to Four Years in Prison for Take Over Plot

The oldest and most continuous citizens militia in the U.S. is the Militia of Georgia. They do not maintain an official Internet presence, mostly due to what has happened with the splinter groups. The original Militia of Georgia, in operation since 1987, never lost a member to a prison or jail cell. Maybe you start there and ask what it takes to be effective and not end up like so many wannabes.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

From a historical standpoint, I can see the need and validity of militias. From an idealogical standpoint today, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole. And I damn sure wouldn't join one.

Just Sayin'


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I have no issue with militias. But like anything else, it's the bad ones who get the press and set the bar for public perception of what a "militia is". Sort of like Doomsday Preppers. 

I cringe when I see what is obviously a bunch of grown men who are nothing short of uneducated hillbillies running around playing "Army". The flip side to that are the fanatical ones who are tactical ninjas and always "former special ops" guys who either couldn't play "army" to begin with or try to relive their military days and shape it to fit what they thought their career should have been, doing the things they wanted to do, but couldn't make it.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> What is and is not a Militia is hard to define. A group of good citizens loosely organized to provide common defense and security is one thing.
> A hard core group bent on taking power is another.
> You judge any group by the content of character of those they put before you as leaders. Judge by actions not words.
> A militia should be focused on common defense not a quest for power there is a big difference.
> ...


My opinion of "militias" is pretty much the same as Smitty's. But for the sake of this post, I will define militia as what the Lancer guys appear to be trying to do from their web site. I.E. hand-to-hand combat training, combat shooting, learning combat tactics, fitness training etc.

My question is, if you have a strong interest in learning about those things, why would you not just make a career the U.S. military? It is an honorable career. You will not find more qualified instructors to teach you those topics. Plus you get paid to do it. Trying to learn those types of subjects from Joe-Bob down the street, even if he was a 20 year vet, seems like a wasted effort and very expensive.

No matter what topic I am trying to learn about, I ALWAYS want the best instruction I can get. In the case of learning anything combat related, that means somebody from the U.S. military that specializes in whatever discipline I am learning. Plus, it usually means somebody different for each discipline. I.E. The guy that is teaching you to shoot pistols is probably not the same guy that is most qualified to teach you to shoot rifles or hand-to-hand combat. Thinking otherwise is just self-delusion in my arrogant opinion.

In other words, trying to amass enough qualified people and equipment to properly teach you the skills you are obviously interested in learning is going to be VERY difficult and VERY expensive on your own.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Is this illegal in California?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Militias are supposed to be state trained citizens who will defend the state from invaders, civil unrest, or tyranny. 
They are supposed to be funded by the federal government but controlled solely by the state or county in which they reside.
My state disbanded the militia shortly after the National guard was put in place but constitutionally all able bodied men in each state are the state militia unless they serve in the federally controlled military.

btw: Mish, your picture doesn't look anything like you....


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Militias are supposed to be state trained citizens who will defend the state from invaders, civil unrest, or tyranny.
> They are supposed to be funded by the federal government but controlled solely by the state or county in which they reside.
> My state disbanded the militia shortly after the National guard was put in place but constitutionally all able bodied men in each state are the state militia unless they serve in the federally controlled military.
> 
> btw: Mish, your picture doesn't look anything like you....


NOTHING could possibly be further from the truth. The militia, by federal law, is not controlled by any branch of the government. Believing in this convoluted interpretation would nullify the Second Amendment.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Inor said:


> My opinion of "militias" is pretty much the same as Smitty's. But for the sake of this post, I will define militia as what the Lancer guys appear to be trying to do from their web site. I.E. hand-to-hand combat training, combat shooting, learning combat tactics, fitness training etc.
> 
> My question is, if you have a strong interest in learning about those things, why would you not just make a career the U.S. military? It is an honorable career. You will not find more qualified instructors to teach you those topics. Plus you get paid to do it. Trying to learn those types of subjects from Joe-Bob down the street, even if he was a 20 year vet, seems like a wasted effort and very expensive.
> 
> ...


The answer to your question is very basic and very simple:

If you join and sign onto the U.S. military, you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You are a part of the organized militia, working on behalf of the government. The unorganized militia is the last line of defense against tyranny in government. So, in short, the militia can provide an auxiliary force in the event of civil unrest and / or invasion where constitutional Liberties are at stake PLUS civilian militias protect the people if / when the government acts against the Constitution and all other political and legal remedies have failed. See this for more information:

Liberty Forum - We are returning... :: View topic - What is the militia and how do I become a part of it?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

What we have is through the State of Texas. This is not the National Guard.

Home - Texas State Guard

The State Guard is one component of this

Texas Military Forces

God Bless Texas


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The Resister said:


> NOTHING could possibly be further from the truth. The militia, by federal law, is not controlled by any branch of the government. Believing in this convoluted interpretation would nullify the Second Amendment.


Article 1, section 8 of the constitution reads; "...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;..."

Show how a right of individuals protected by the second amendment can be nullified by this clause of the constitution.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

We seem to be comparing apples to oranges by attempting to tear down each others' position, when there is clear backing for each. A truck is good for one thing, a bike another.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Article 1, section 8 of the constitution reads; "...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
> ...


PaulS, you are now mixing the Constitution with fantasy. While the Constitution provides the authority to Congress to raise money and train a militia, that is NOT the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment clarifies the Right a bit more:

"_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_."

Since the "National Guard" was federalized in 1902, it does not constitute the whole militia. It's a government militia. Let us cite the law for PaulS:

_(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.
(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_. (10 USC 311)

Many court decisions have separated these two distinct classes of militia. For example:

" `_The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right_." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power_." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

PaulS, you are attempting to prove that the National Guard is the militia and that simply is not true. The National Guard is not the "militia" in the sense of the term as our founding fathers interpreted it.

"_It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them_."

..."_And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions_." (Samuel Adams)

Read this very carefully:

PaulS stated:

"_Militias are supposed to be state trained citizens_..."

That view is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong and he cannot document such a proposition from any historical source. The government raises up an organized militia pursuant to Article 1 Section 8; however, the control of the unorganized militia is not under the control of the government lest we live in an absolute POLICE STATE... and that is one of the issues I disagree with "_Social Conservatives_" over.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Nation Guard is a State militia. It is under the control of the State with the Governor the commander and chief. They join into partnerships with the federal Government . The Feds provide funding and equipment to the states. But the National guard remains fully under state control until it is federalized by the President. The consent of the State Governor must also be given. This came up during the Iraq war a couple of States had entertained the idea of refusing to deploy.
The reason for this is the Posse Comitatus Act. The ACT has been amended over the years but the intent is still the same. 
Not going into a long history lesson here. The federal government is limited on it use of military force against US citizens and States. The National Guard is away around that. 
When The Watts riots broke out people wonder why the troops were not acting. Simple they had been federalized once that happens they are ,limited in action that can be taken. Nation Guard troops on the other hand are not. In most states they have automatic or implied police power. Something Federal troops can not have. The reason states want The Guard federalized in cases of emergence is simply WHO pays the bill. Many times there have been serious issues with the use of troops because they were federalized and the ability to act was limited.
Is a militia State controlled ,federal controlled or run by private citizens D. All of the above it can be any or all of the above.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Smitty, I don't really know what the difference is but here in Texas we have both the state guard and the national guard.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The NATIONAL guard is part of the US armed forces and can be called by the governor to help in emergencies but it can and has been called to serve in foreign wars by the congress - like the middle east and Afghanistan.

The state militia is under no federal control but can be called on by the governor. (for those few state that actually have a militia)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in no way connected to the militia other than the militia is composed of all able bodied men in the state.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Nation Guard is a State militia. It is under the control of the State with the Governor the commander and chief. They join into partnerships with the federal Government . The Feds provide funding and equipment to the states. But the National guard remains fully under state control until it is federalized by the President. The consent of the State Governor must also be given. This came up during the Iraq war a couple of States had entertained the idea of refusing to deploy.
> The reason for this is the Posse Comitatus Act. The ACT has been amended over the years but the intent is still the same.
> Not going into a long history lesson here. The federal government is limited on it use of military force against US citizens and States. The National Guard is away around that.
> When The Watts riots broke out people wonder why the troops were not acting. Simple they had been federalized once that happens they are ,limited in action that can be taken. Nation Guard troops on the other hand are not. In most states they have automatic or implied police power. Something Federal troops can not have. The reason states want The Guard federalized in cases of emergence is simply WHO pays the bill. Many times there have been serious issues with the use of troops because they were federalized and the ability to act was limited.
> Is a militia State controlled ,federal controlled or run by private citizens D. All of the above it can be any or all of the above.


A truly state militia cannot be federalized against the will of the state. Furthermore, with the integrated military concept, the national guard units are less and less state, other than the units are permanently based within states and members aren't rotated in and out of units.

Words and reality seem to be very incongruent when it comes to the state national guard units. State national guard. Even that sounds a tad goofy.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

National Guard is Called by the President not congress.
The 32 RED arrow was made up of National Guard units fought in WW1 And WW 2. 
WW2 Red arrow logged 654 days of combat more than any unit .
The history of the RED arrow is required study .


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> National Guard is Called by the President not congress.
> The 32 RED arrow was made up of National Guard units fought in WW1 And WW 2.
> WW2 Red arrow logged 654 days of combat more than any unit .
> The history of the RED arrow is required study .


That being beside the point, the units are called, activated, and taken from the control of the states.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Denton said:


> That being beside the point, the units are called, activated, and taken from the control of the states.


 Yes once activated the State turns over control. I do agree that in current times the lines get blurred. However the idea and reason still stand.
This is the kind of stuff they have to study as you move up and around in the military .
Posse Comitatus Act is something many Americans have never really heard of but should at least look at and the reason why it was passed.
It is often bastardized into something it was never intend to be by anit government groups.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Yes once activated the State turns over control. I do agree that in current times the lines get blurred. However the idea and reason still stand.
> This is the kind of stuff they have to study as you move up and around in the military .
> Posse Comitatus Act is something many Americans have never really heard of but should at least look at and the reason why it was passed.
> It is often bastardized into something it was never intend to be by anit government groups.


Posse Comitatus was originally intended to keep the federal government from using federal forces to enforce *state* laws. The National Guard is today a federal force; however, the National Guard, by law, is not limited from enforcing state laws. The National Defense Authorization Act (signed by King Barry Obama in 2011) codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history effectively repealed Posse Comitatus.

The big problem with trying to claim that the National Defense Authorization Act can apply only to foreign terrorists is without merit, thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. Again, the "_Social Conservatives_" may argue one thing, but the reality is, more Americans are victims of these kinds of laws than are foreigners. It only illustrates one of the ways the militia could come to the aid of we, the people... IF they only understood what the role of the militia is.


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

Inor said:


> My question is, if you have a strong interest in learning about those things, why would you not just make a career the U.S. military?


Because being in any branch sucks major donkey shlong. But then again, I'm a disgruntled enlistedman who is counting down the days until I'm out of the Army. I can't stand the bureaucratic and political bs that comes with it these days.


----------



## pharmer14 (Oct 27, 2012)

Thanks a lot for attracting even more NSA attention to this website... Those of us who just want to be left alone thank you for that...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

pharmer14 said:


> Thanks a lot for attracting even more NSA attention to this website... Those of us who just want to be left alone thank you for that...


Sorry bud but with the conversation that have happened all over this board, I'm sure we have been required reading for them. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at least one person on this board is not who they seem to be.


----------



## pharmer14 (Oct 27, 2012)

inceptor said:


> It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at least one person on this board is not who they seem to be.


Agreed


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

inceptor said:


> It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at least one person on this board is not who they seem to be.


I think you're the mole!!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mish said:


> I think you're the mole!!


Flattery will get you everywhere.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

inceptor said:


> Flattery will get you everywhere.


I guessed it, I guessed it!! What do I win?!! Oh, I hope it's pretty and pink!!


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Ok I admit it I am a CIA agent!


Waterboarding has always been better giving than receiving.

What else do you want to know. As a government agent I am sworn to tell the truth and uphold the law.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mish said:


> I guessed it, I guessed it!! What do I win?!! Oh, I hope it's pretty and pink!!


I have no door prizes right now. :sad:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> National Guard is Called by the President not congress.
> The 32 RED arrow was made up of National Guard units fought in WW1 And WW 2.
> WW2 Red arrow logged 654 days of combat more than any unit .
> The history of the RED arrow is required study .


Have I been misled all these years, or is the president federal? Federal, right? That is to say, not part of the state, correct? In other words, do you come even close to seeing what I am saying, or do I need to try other words?

Top; if it can be controlled by the federal government, if the authority of the state governments can be legally usurped by the federal government, what is it? It is under the control of the federal government. If it is in any way funded by the federal government and can be taken over by the federal government, it is not a militia.

Top, the concept of the national guard was not even a thought in the founding days, nor is it something that can be legally used to protect the state from anything not sanctioned by the federal government. Simple as that. It is nothing more than a federal entity that can be used for state purposes, as long as the federal government does not mind, if the federal government isn't using it at the time.

Sorry if I am restating what has already been said, but I have been watching comedy on Netflix. About to jump back into comedy, as a matter of fact. It is really needed, at this juncture.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

inceptor said:


> I have no door prizes right now. :sad:


That's BS!! Take a look at my avatar...hehe


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh, Im pretty sure that we have deffinately been had. I suspect a few more than one have infiltrated our ranks, but I hope they have come to the conclusion that we are just a group of like minded people that are trying to help each other.
I hope when they arrest me, they let my boss know, so that I can enjoy some peacefull quiet time. Do prisoners have to pay taxes?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mish said:


> That's BS!! Take a look at my avatar...hehe


::clapping::


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mish said:


> That's BS!! Take a look at my avatar...hehe


Slut.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Denton said:


> Slut.


Is that like being a sandra fluke type or just typical brain dead liberal! Oh, wait, there is no difference....


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Denton said:


> Have I been misled all these years, or is the president federal? Federal, right? That is to say, not part of the state, correct? In other words, do you come even close to seeing what I am saying, or do I need to try other words?


It goes back to US history. I am not a US history major however here is an overview. In the early years of the United States, there were the serveral states. New England etc.. The US is a Confederacy of states --- those states send representatives to congress which is the union. The federal government developed out of the federalist movement which effectively placed the federal government as the supreme power. The real division of power however is that powers are seperate. the federal government has its powers such as commerce, foreign affairs I beleive and others, while the powers that the federal government does not have, the states have... the powers the states do not have the people have.

So the US is a confederacy of states which share powers and interstate powers which sends representatives to congress. An electoral college which is determined by state laws elects the president seperate from the congress.

Overtime congress has created other bodies such as the supreme court which was sub vires congress, however it has a special status these days as developed under the concept of a seperate judicature. The president is the commander in cheif of the martial forces. The president is subject to congress but has some veto powers.

Things are quite far progressed with US government but there really is no law aside from the will of the people and the power of the 
state. Ultiamtely the president is responsible to protect the constitution of the united states.

Politics is another matter completely as the only law is what the legislature has support to force the rule of law on the executive. otherwise it is all politics.

The president is a constitutionally mandated post in the confederacy of the united states. and is head of the Union - as he is the executive officer of the union... the level of power is represented in the standing order of the union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

more on federalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

It makes more senes if you look at it this way. A bunch of colonies of Britain rebelled and got a peace treaty - declaraction of independence, they set up a confederacy of states articles of confederation, their representatives established a Constitution which established a federal government through seperation of powers.



> According to their terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states, Rhode Island, ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to convene with a quorum until October 1788, overseeing the adoption of the new Constitution by the states, setting elections and attending to other business.[46][47] By July 1788, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. On September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress published an announcement that the new Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine states, set the first Wednesday in February 1789 for the presidential electors to meet and select a new president, and set the first Wednesday of March 1789 as the day the new government would take over and the government under the Articles of Confederation would come to an end.[43][48] On that same September 13, it determined that New York would remain the national capital.[43]


The matter is further complicated by citizenship vs. loyalty and status
The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30, 1778 at Valley Forge, during the Revolutionary War.

12 years before the government/constituion/state was altered. There was a big push during the war of 1812-1814 for new oaths (some 20 or so years later)

40 or so years after that the civil war broke out.. between unionist and confederate forces.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

I don't think this site is for recruiting for militias some us here been there done that in the military..I did my time and Im fine with it...Don't need to play Ramboe out in the woods with a bunch of wanna bes...If the time comes ill do what needs to be done to keep my oath to the country I fought for and its citizens and its laws I served....JMHO about the matter..


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

specknowsbest said:


> Because being in any branch sucks major donkey shlong. But then again, I'm a disgruntled enlistedman who is counting down the days until I'm out of the Army. I can't stand the bureaucratic and political bs that comes with it these days.


First, thank-you for your service to my family and myself. I take the sacrifices you all make very personally.

I agree, taking orders from anybody sucks major donkey shlong.  Unfortunately, it is no different in the civilian world if you want to be successful. My point to the poster was that there is no better place to learn combat skills than the U.S military since that seems to be their goal. Yes, it probably blows, but I am pretty sure you would not come close to the quality of instruction in a civilian environment. (I did not serve, so I do not know firsthand but it seems a reasonable assumption.) On the other hand, learning any skill worth learning is not fun.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The NATIONAL guard is part of the US armed forces and can be called by the governor to help in emergencies but it can and has been called to serve in foreign wars by the congress - like the middle east and Afghanistan.
> 
> The state militia is under no federal control but can be called on by the governor. (for those few state that actually have a militia)
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in no way connected to the militia other than the militia is composed of all able bodied men in the state.


I'd say if all the able bodied men composed the militia, that would be connection enough. Additionally, *Black's Law Dictionary* defines it like this:

_MILITIA - The body of *citizens* in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army_.

Black's is the most authoritative source for defining words you can use in any court in the United States.

The basic connection is that every able bodied person who is able can own personal firearms. That alone makes them militia in a broad sense. If they take up their civic duties and use their authority as citizens to bring about change to no avail, extraordinary measures are then options after all other non-violent political and legal avenues of redress have been exhausted. That would mean that those citizens, when acting to protect public Liberties, are acting in a lawful militia when government does not respond to lawful overtures when the public Liberty is threatened.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Titan6 said:


> I don't think this site is for recruiting for militias some us here been there done that in the military..I did my time and Im fine with it...Don't need to play Ramboe out in the woods with a bunch of wanna bes...If the time comes ill do what needs to be done to keep my oath to the country I fought for and its citizens and its laws I served....JMHO about the matter..


Yep. That about sums it up in my view as well.
One of the Founders commented during the Continental Congress: "What is the militia? The milita is the whole of the people." His name escapes me at the moment, but I think it was Mason.
Therefore I am already in the militia, as is everyone else on this board.
And like my good comrade from the 101st I feel no need to associate with any "organized militia".


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I agree that "every able bodied person who is able can own personal firearms. That alone makes them militia..." I disagree that the constitutional definition in any way abridges or restricts the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Black's Law Dictionary simply defines one of many reasons for that right to be a protected right that should not be infringed.

Does that make my point easier for you to understand?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> I agree that "every able bodied person who is able can own personal firearms. That alone makes them militia..." I disagree that the constitutional definition in any way abridges or restricts the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Black's Law Dictionary simply defines one of many reasons for that right to be a protected right that should not be infringed.
> 
> Does that make my point easier for you to understand?


when you are making an allegation that was never uttered in this thread, your position is just as murky as it was the first time you said something that was in error. If you recall, you started out with a premise that (and let me quote you right):

"_Militias are supposed to be state trained citizens who will defend the state from invaders, civil unrest, or tyranny_."

If the government trains citizens, they are no longer a part of the *unorganized *militia; therefore, they are under oath to defend the almighty STATE with no regard to the protection of the people, the public Liberty and Freedom in general.

The state absolutely does not train that part of the militia that is NOT a part of the organized forces. Yet that militia exists. The illegal (de facto) forces throws boulders into the way of the unorganized militia with some states adopting anti - paramilitary laws. You can still exist as a militia and you train - only thing is, you don't do military training under the auspices of the militia. You join the militia and go to the Appleseed shoots in order to learn how to use your firearm.

As part of the militia, you can do stuff like the Boy Scouts on steroids: first aid, communications, intelligence gathering, survival skills, etc. They cannot outlaw those activities. If you can function as a unit, do firearms training as every day civilians and work within the parameters of the law, you can exist and train.

If, as you claim, that only state trained citizens could be militia, there would be no force to protect us from tyranny in government. Since the masses believe what you're peddling, they sit back and act like helpless victims while tyrants run us into insolvency, steal our Rights and make us a toothless tiger at the polls. If you had made the claims you have here to the people who forged the words of the Constitution, they would have tried you for treason.

If what you say were true, we would all be obligated to submit to tyranny.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Will said:


> It goes back to US history. I am not a US history major however here is an overview. In the early years of the United States, there were the serveral states. New England etc.. The US is a Confederacy of states --- those states send representatives to congress which is the union. The federal government developed out of the federalist movement which effectively placed the federal government as the supreme power. The real division of power however is that powers are seperate. the federal government has its powers such as commerce, foreign affairs I beleive and others, while the powers that the federal government does not have, the states have... the powers the states do not have the people have.
> 
> So the US is a confederacy of states which share powers and interstate powers which sends representatives to congress. An electoral college which is determined by state laws elects the president seperate from the congress.
> 
> ...


What's your point? I mean, thank you very much for the history brief, but please explain what I was supposed to learn and understand, regarding the army, organized militias and unorganized militias?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The problem with being clear is that there are multiple sources being quoted and the responsibilities of the federal and state governments are not being met. That does not eliminate the existence of the militia it merely defunds them and doesn't establish and train them on the state level.

The constitution requires the federal government to fund the state trained militia and the state appoints the officers. The militia is free to act on its own in defense of the state but can be called by congress or through the power of the congress for national needs. This is in the constitution. Although the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces he does not have the constit5utional power to call on the militia.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Yep. That about sums it up in my view as well.
> One of the Founders commented during the Continental Congress: "What is the militia? The milita is the whole of the people." His name escapes me at the moment, but I think it was Mason.
> Therefore I am already in the militia, as is everyone else on this board.
> And like my good comrade from the 101st I feel no need to associate with any "organized militia".


 that's the way I see it. Although I would change " organized militia" to paramilitary organization.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Damn, y'all found another one of his buttons.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

inceptor said:


> Damn, y'all found another one of his buttons.


Well, that's pretty easy when we are dealing with someone who thinks he knows everything.
Which begs the question - if he talks in the woods, does anyone hear him?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Well, that's pretty easy when we are dealing with someone who thinks he knows everything.
> Which begs the question - if he talks in the woods, does anyone hear him?


My experience with you is that you really DO think you know everything. It's one thing to disagree, but quite another to come up with something except personality contests to challenge people with. Condescension during a discussion is really unnecessary. You come here advertising your military service, but have little respect for those with an equal or greater amount of experience.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

The Resister said:


> My experience with you is that you really DO think you know everything. It's one thing to disagree, but quite another to come up with something except personality contests to challenge people with. Condescension during a discussion is really unnecessary. You come here advertising your military service, but have little respect for those with an equal or greater amount of experience.


Talk about being condescending, you do that a lot. You talk mostly like you think everyone is stupid. THAT this one of the main reasons you get so much grief. When someone hits one of your hot buttons, you come in like a raging bull.

It is easier to have a conversation with you when you refrain from this. I know because there have been some really good discussions with you involved. I can't even believe I wrote that but it is true.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)




----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

Lucky Jim where have you been? I was worried. Glad to see you back.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Thanks mate I've been strutting my stuff on the online computer wargames circuit..

Me (second from left) and my boys, nobody better mess with us!









Yours truly-


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

inceptor said:


> Talk about being condescending, you do that a lot. You talk mostly like you think everyone is stupid. THAT this one of the main reasons you get so much grief. When someone hits one of your hot buttons, you come in like a raging bull.
> 
> It is easier to have a conversation with you when you refrain from this. I know because there have been some really good discussions with you involved. I can't even believe I wrote that but it is true.


I have a discussion with PaulS who advocates a socialist proposition. Not once did I come out swinging and the difference of opinion didn't have shit to do with you or rice paddy daddy. It wasn't worth the condescending tone especially after PaulS advocated a position inconsistent with the intent of the Second Amendment.

This country is falling apart at the seams. We have the liberals tearing our guts out and getting their jollies by watching these clique groups within what used to be the constitutionalists rip each other a new asshole over personality issues. Dude, I get up every morning making sure I do one thing to prepare myself and my family for the situation I find ourselves in. I do all I can to share real life experiences and the worst enemies I make are those who are screwing around on a prepping site, looking for a fight. When I stand up to this little clique group, you guys act like someone violated someone's pre-teen daughter.

inceptor, it's time to grow up and act like a man. This is the Internet. While it may allow you to act all indignant and offended when someone disagrees with you, it does little to advance the cause by picking these personality contests. In my mind, and the minds of some others, PaulS comes off to us the same way you claim I come off to you. So, we defend our positions with facts and let people make their decision based upon facts rather than personalities. Okay, I quit. I lose the personality issue. But, you guys that pretend to "_disagree_" with me pissed away an entire country. I don't see the wisdom in rolling over, then playing dead just to win your favor. If you want to screw with me on a personal level, it would be more mature to do so in PM and leave it in PM. It's not doing a damn thing to advance understanding to have this pissing match in a thread about militias.

The guy came here wanting information on militias. Having been IN the militia since 1987, I felt it gave me a little of an advantage over PaulS when discussing what the militia is. Everybody has a Right to their own opinion, but nobody has a Right to be wrong in their facts. IF we have no Right to rebel against tyranny in government, then our forefathers fought, bled and died in vain. PaulS stated his opinion as fact. In reality, it wasn't. PaulS has an approach that would have us submit to the whims of a tyrannical government and that destroys all the logic of inquiring about militias and for sure negates any need to be a prepper. Just accept your chains and be happy.

Now, since you've won your personality contest, I don't have to respond to personal B.S. any longer on this thread. The challenge before you is to find some fact, some law, some historical reference that disputes what I discussed relative to militias.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The Resister said:


> My experience with you is that you really DO think you know everything. It's one thing to disagree, but quite another to come up with something except personality contests to challenge people with. Condescension during a discussion is really unnecessary. You come here advertising your military service, but have little respect for those with an equal or greater amount of experience.


No, pal, I'm just a dumb old truck driver that never got beyond 12th grade. And I have never pretended to be anything else.
But the military DID endow me with a pretty accurate BS Detector.
Have a nice day!


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Resister said:


> My experience with you is that you really DO think you know everything. It's one thing to disagree, but quite another to come up with something except personality contests to challenge people with. Condescension during a discussion is really unnecessary. You come here advertising your military service, but have little respect for those with an equal or greater amount of experience.


Hey Resister, you sir can be a very nice, reasonable person at times and then what seams to be your true nature gets the better of you and you become a condescending prick. So I would be careful throwing much of that around....


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

BamaBoy101 said:


> Hey Resister, you sir can be a very nice, reasonable person at times and then what seams to be your true nature gets the better of you and you become a condescending prick. So I would be careful throwing much of that around....


Bamaboy, I've lost as many friends to jail cells and murder by the LEO community as most vets in Vietnam lost in battle. The fight to me is just as real as any that has been fought. All these guys come around with their phony B.S. meters are full of it. My life was the most documented of any militia member in our era.

It's difficult to remain silent when you see people give out bad and inaccurate information. If doing what I believe in makes me a prick, then so be it... but, check the reality meter instead of the B.S. meter: WHO stated something as fact and failed to document it when called on it? I believe that I provided you with the verifiable information. If that offends you, then maybe there is no way to tell people the truth that is palatable. Don't you think?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Is there any interest in discussing the militia rather than personalities? Thanks for all the criticisms, but if there is no way to disagree without raising the wrath of some people, then we cannot have a serious discussion. I'm on this thread to discuss the militia, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to suggest a way to disagree with PaulS and NOT get mass attacked, by all means I read my PMs. Other than that, is there anything else relative to the militia?


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Bamaboy, I've lost as many friends to jail cells and murder by the LEO community as most vets in Vietnam lost in battle. The fight to me is just as real as any that has been fought. All these guys come around with their phony B.S. meters are full of it. My life was the most documented of any militia member in our era.
> 
> It's difficult to remain silent when you see people give out bad and inaccurate information. If doing what I believe in makes me a prick, then so be it... but, check the reality meter instead of the B.S. meter: WHO stated something as fact and failed to document it when called on it? I believe that I provided you with the verifiable information. If that offends you, then maybe there is no way to tell people the truth that is palatable. Don't you think?


Its not your content but it is the condescending way you talk down to people. Its the wording and way you approach people. This is something I myself had to learn. On the internet we have nothing but your words, no affect or demeanor to go by and you come off in a bad way. We can disagree without talking down to or being condescending in the process.


----------



## Mottmcfly (Jan 21, 2014)

While this has been a tough thread to read through. I started reading as I was genuinely interested in what the Militia is now and what it was meant to be. 

I think I've got a pretty good idea and even did some research on current California Militias. So thank to all that offered solid info. I really appreciate it.

Mott


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

I have stayed out of this thread for a bit, I just have to say that Militia is a very scary proposition now days. You have to know that if the shit hit you would be out equipped. It would be like throwing a F-22 against a Japanese Zero. I really wish there were options for right minded Milita. Sadly I would fear my personal honor would get me killed doing my duty if I signed up for one.

I do not know how to fight this war as my vote seems useless and I see the scales that balance the strength of the people vs government tip further every time I turn on the news. I have a pen and a phone... but I feel useless now days. Thanks Obama.


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

guys guys

There is no reason to squabble with one another over this, before I arrived I'm sure there were many topic where everyone had a laugh at each other expense and then moved on with their day. My goal was to just talk back and forth on the topic at hand to see what opinions people had on militias. I glad that there is a varied amount of opinions as it adds to the diversity of the conversation, but their is no reason for anyone to become heated over it.

As I've state many times I'm a avid believer in the "U.S." militia and being a constitutionalist. I make it no secret that i am building a small unit in California an part of our goal is to be able to fight and defend ourselves and our community, but in truth that is only a small part of a greater goal of being able to ingrain ourselves in that community and try and strengthen it.

at one point someone mentioned "why not join the military to get the best training", and to that i have a double answer. firstly i myself have done that and it was a enjoyable part of my life, however my time was up an with everything going on here on the homefront i didn't want to serve another 3 to 6 years for a master i had no confidence in, plus anyone who has pulled pits knows not everyone is a crack shot or good at anything other then working parties. secondly despite popular belief that you get the latest and greatest high speed training and gear, that is simple not true unless you SF and i was not... i was just a 0311... an in truth much of the private sector provides better training then that in military courses, many of those private sector instructor are prior military i will not deny that however when want to creating a new course or update a old one they go to an expert on that field. many skills like evading capture, primitive survival skill, combat lifesavers and even the Marines MCMAP program had outside influences in their construction. i hope that is enough to satisfy your curiosity on that subject.

anyway i am glad that this topic is flourishing and i hope for more stimulating back and forth, but there's no reason for any of us to be hostile as in most cases its just one opinion against another.

good wishes and tidings to you all


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

LANCERCO001 said:


> guys guys
> 
> There is no reason to squabble with one another over this, before I arrived I'm sure there were many topic where everyone had a laugh at each other expense and then moved on with their day. My goal was to just talk back and forth on the topic at hand to see what opinions people had on militias. I glad that there is a varied amount of opinions as it adds to the diversity of the conversation, but their is no reason for anyone to become heated over it.
> 
> ...


Lancero001,

I'm glad that you see that the back and forth is what it is. I didn't enter this thread to be part of the incessant popularity contest you have to be in just to make a point.

Realize that the modern militia of today is not the one of the 1980s and 1990s and certainly bears no resemblance to what the founding fathers envisioned. As you are aware one wise individual once stated that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and Bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. Here is what you are not being told:

The militias of the 1980s and 1990s gave way to National Socialists who wanted to be border patrollers beginning about 2003. When they burst onto the scene, I began telling people what they were really about. It made me very unpopular, but eventually it was proven in every case. Jim Gilchrist was proven to be a white supremacist; his co - founder, Chris Simcox exposed as being a neo - Nazi. Former Nazi officer J.T. Ready (who murdered his family before taking his own life) was exposed with Simcox. The late William Cooper (author of Behold a Pale Horse) exposed Gary Hunt as being the unidentified John Doe in the OKC Murrah building bombing incident.

The real militia was swept aside as more and more people identify with the "_Social Conservative_" movement. That word "_Social_" becomes very prominent in the discussion. You aren't going to find recruitment material on most discussion boards because they are mostly social sites. In my mind, on a true prepper site, people would care enough to work together to try and avoid a SHTF scenario. It's my own opinion and that along with a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee in most restaurants in America.

A belief in the Constitution and the principles of free enterprise are the exceptions, not the rule today. It's not "safe" to be IN the militia. I can give you hundreds of reasons not to join. You see the B.S. one must go through with just to explain what the militia is and what it is not. That alone is why many people abandon the idea. *OTOH*, real change (whether for good or bad) never starts with the masses. A mere 56 men stood up to King George and created the greatest nation in recorded history. After they exhausted all other measures, they resorted to civil disobedience, passive resistance and outright rebellion. Their word is that we have the Right and the Duty to do the same. That is a primary function in a modern world where we are moving toward a socialist dictatorship. You stand against tyrants as a part of the militia.

Having said that, you may want to consider the training available to militia personnel. Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events (S.P.I.K.E.) may be your best start. That program was started by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz (a former Green Beret and CIA operative.) I can suggest other ways that you can advance your goal if you are serious, so the ball is now in your court.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Here's my rub. 

This nation is totally out of sorts, and this state of being out of sorts is a designed, calculated state. We have no culture that binds, anymore. We are totally devoid of discipline, morals and principles that made the nation great at one time. The Source of our liberties is ignored, while the "good people" recant the mantra, God Bless America, not realizing it isn't His blessings that we have earned.

We now live in a state of tyranny and seemingly arbitrary rule, now. Our present sad state would not have been tolerated by our forefathers, but our forefathers weren't brainwashed by the corporate media and the government education system, as we are, today.

All one need do to understand the militia that the 2nd amendment would have all able-bodied men be a part of is to read their words in the Federalist Papers and the Anit-Federalist Papers. There, you'll read their beliefs and their concerns. While pondering the present condition of this nation, however, you will quickly come to the realization that we are now so fragmented that we could never come together as a people to fight tyranny. We no longer recognize it for what it is, and a great segment of our society embrace it.

This nation will not be saved at the ballot box, nor will it be saved by the bullet box. It can only be saved when the people realize and accept the Creator of liberty, and return to the ethics, morals and principles of our forefathers. Until then, everything else is merely a fool's errand.


----------



## Vagabond (Jan 14, 2014)

LANCERCO001 said:


> I am not here to change a single persons opinion as i have not the right to do so. in a short time i have seen many that have a open sense of hate towards the idea of militia's from all across the board. From where i live to online there is a overwhelming sense of distrust and hate attached to the militia movement. I ask simply why is that?
> 
> I can understand that for many years now popular media and a few bad apples have stained the idea of the militia in the common mans eyes to a degree, but to the level animosity i see on the news, in books, in general day to day is staggering. How is it that a founding and fundamental right we as Americans are afforded can become so repulsed by the communities it is sworn to protect? In truth we are all allowed our own views on every matter, but i'm just trying to see if i can get to the heart of this issue and see what pains my fellow citizens...
> 
> ...


I suppose if it were an organization that was there for the people when the time came, then great! If it were a group that attacked the people to gain supplies for their betterment, not so much. Except for what the media puts out to the public, not a lot gets said or done to give a differing opinion. What would you do for your community right now and regularly to at least gain trust and appreciation? There's always help within many communities right now. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Vagabond said:


> I suppose if it were an organization that was there for the people when the time came, then great! If it were a group that attacked the people to gain supplies for their betterment, not so much. Except for what the media puts out to the public, not a lot gets said or done to give a differing opinion. What would you do for your community right now and regularly to at least gain trust and appreciation? There's always help within many communities right now. Thoughts anyone?


Yeah. I like to think that groups of people with like minds within communities are the militia, when the time comes. Only those who are prepared can do a single thing.


----------



## Vagabond (Jan 14, 2014)

Notsoyoung said:


> I am neither for or against Militia's generally, but there are some that I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. Personally, after spending 20 years in the U.S. Army I would not be interested in joining a group of amateurs.
> 
> There is one thing, if you and a say 10 or 20 other people are planning on joining together if the SHTF, would that be a Militia?


That is a good question. I'd have to assume that many folks in one place armed and stocked with food/water/supplies may very well be considered that or something similar. Maybe that's how they (in the govt) will justify taking the "hoarded material for redistribution"


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

Vagabond said:


> I suppose if it were an organization that was there for the people when the time came, then great! If it were a group that attacked the people to gain supplies for their betterment, not so much. Except for what the media puts out to the public, not a lot gets said or done to give a differing opinion. What would you do for your community right now and regularly to at least gain trust and appreciation? There's always help within many communities right now. Thoughts anyone?


I like your thought, have you been watching this town
Mexico struggles to rein in armed vigilantes battling drug cartel - CNN.com

Before news spin, I was watching it and it really seems like the towns families banded together to make it a safer place against the cartel. I am rooting for them. Recently however, they have been labelled vigilantes. So what, good for them imo.


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

Silverback said:


> I like your thought, have you been watching this town
> Mexico struggles to rein in armed vigilantes battling drug cartel - CNN.com
> 
> Before news spin, I was watching it and it really seems like the towns families banded together to make it a safer place against the cartel. I am rooting for them. Recently however, they have been labelled vigilantes. So what, good for them imo.


It is about time someone stood up to them!! I am tired of hearing how bad they are down there. DO something about it. Kill the head of the cartel,next in line and so on. They have no mercy for anyone so you have to be the same way to beat someone like that.. A .308/300 win mag will do wonders from long range...You just have to have the cajones to do what needs to be done. If I lived on the border and they were coming across my land and killing my neighbors. BAD shit would be happening!!!


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PrepConsultant said:


> It is about time someone stood up to them!! I am tired of hearing how bad they are down there. DO something about it. Kill the head of the cartel,next in line and so on. They have no mercy for anyone so you have to be the same way to beat someone like that.. A .308/300 win mag will do wonders from long range...You just have to have the cajones to do what needs to be done. If I lived on the border and they were coming across my land and killing my neighbors. BAD shit would be happening!!!


I can empathize with the sentiment; however, let us return to the scene of the crime, as it were, and see what actually happened:

The year was 2003. In a Texas town two Salvadorans tried to cross private property lines and come into the U.S. without papers. The property was owned by Joe Sutton. Sutton had enlisted the help of Ranch Rescue, a group that protected private property from foreign trespassers. Anyway an altercation ensued and the Salvadorans took the property owner and Ranch Rescue to court. Now, here is the insult:

The Salvadorans are trespassing. Yet they file lawsuits and are awarded about 1.1 million dollars. Sutton agreed to an out of court settlement in the amount of about $100,000 while Ranch Rescue lost over a million dollars for "_violating the civil rights of the Salvadorans_."

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue | Southern Poverty Law Center

In my mind the movement would have been better served to fight this issue all the way through the court system, but they didn't. Maybe hindsight is 20 / 20, but in any case the precedent was set. These trespassers have "_civil rights_" that obviously trump private property Rights. So, barring any legal challenges to that kind of insanity, the courts will not allow people to defend their private property.

Adding insult to injury, we allowed the construction of a fence along the southern border. That led to court decisions allowing the LEO community to cross private property without a warrant to enforce and inspect this fence. Now, Homeland (IN) Security can make this argument that, since the LEO community has this power to go onto your property at the border, there is no need for you to protect your own private property... lest you violate some trespasser's "_civil rights._" OMG, it's beyond insanity.

Then, of course, there are the Constitution Free Zones and your Rights got flushed down the toilet especially in border towns.

Many a time I have wished I had the support to go back and fight a strategic fight in the courts and legislatures so that we could have used the militia to stop the drug trade since our own government will not act by issuing a Declaration of War against Mexico and forcing Mexico to police its population or watch our military decimate them at the border.


----------



## PrepConsultant (Aug 28, 2012)

Should have just went ahead and shot them. Dead men can't testify against you.. I know, I'm just bein a smart ass... It's pretty sad when you are only tryin to protect your own property and then you can be sued.. If I was Joe Sutton, it wouldn't have made it to court either. Might have been a little different though.


----------



## LANCERCO001 (Jan 20, 2014)

this is going to be a long winded post and for that i apologize but i feel that all of these were great posts and i wanted to address each one



Denton said:


> Here's my rub.
> 
> This nation is totally out of sorts, and this state of being out of sorts is a designed, calculated state. We have no culture that binds, anymore. We are totally devoid of discipline, morals and principles that made the nation great at one time. The Source of our liberties is ignored, while the "good people" recant the mantra, God Bless America, not realizing it isn't His blessings that we have earned.
> 
> ...


i sadly agree with you on that. we have lost our compass in the sea of bureaucratic's and bullshit multimedia. we as a country have forgotten our rich "and in some cases dark history"... and with that the old proverb of those that forget their history are doomed to repeat it seems to come to mind.



Vagabond said:


> I suppose if it were an organization that was there for the people when the time came, then great! If it were a group that attacked the people to gain supplies for their betterment, not so much. Except for what the media puts out to the public, not a lot gets said or done to give a differing opinion. What would you do for your community right now and regularly to at least gain trust and appreciation? There's always help within many communities right now. Thoughts anyone?


My group is currently work on assisting Red Cross in setting up a local blood drive as one of their reps has told me that they currently are down by about 9000 pints of blood so anything we can do to help. we are also planing on working with my old unit of 2/23 for toys for tots at the end of the year, trying to give some kids at least something to look forward to this year because i can understand what it mean to come from a broken home. one of my guys said it best "we train to fight, its what we do but that is not who we are."



Silverback said:


> I like your thought, have you been watching this town
> Mexico struggles to rein in armed vigilantes battling drug cartel - CNN.com
> 
> Before news spin, I was watching it and it really seems like the towns families banded together to make it a safer place against the cartel. I am rooting for them. Recently however, they have been labelled vigilantes. So what, good for them imo.





PrepConsultant said:


> It is about time someone stood up to them!! I am tired of hearing how bad they are down there. DO something about it. Kill the head of the cartel,next in line and so on. They have no mercy for anyone so you have to be the same way to beat someone like that.. A .308/300 win mag will do wonders from long range...You just have to have the cajones to do what needs to be done. If I lived on the border and they were coming across my land and killing my neighbors. BAD shit would be happening!!!


isn't kinda funny when the law usurps and surpasses *commonsense* and the people are being prosecuted for simply defending their community for what could be seen as a foreign invading army of drug pushers and all around reprobates? i find it extremely sad that i have to have permission to defend myself and my hold from those that seek me and my ilk harm. if the government refuses to do something to stop the problem then why should "WE THE PEOPLE" simply stand by and allow it to continue is my thought process.


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

I did a no-no and skipped several pages to get to the end, so I apologize if my words are irrelevant this far into the conversation. My personal stance on a and all militias is that they are indeed important for many reasons, not withholding protection from our own government. In a SHTF situation though, they are my main concern. I [for lack of a better word] _fear_ a militia coming in and declaring it's own law, becoming the new government of the land, even for "our own good".

I can foresee taxation without representation in full effect, and that being the high point.


----------



## bhtacticaloutdoors (Nov 17, 2013)

I'm pretty sure prepper's are fairly close if not next to militias on the government list.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Rob Roy said:


> In a SHTF situation though, they are my main concern. I [for lack of a better word] _fear_ a militia coming in and declaring it's own law, becoming the new government of the land, even for "our own good".
> 
> I can foresee taxation without representation in full effect, and that being the high point.


And if that's the case they will meet the same end as any tyrants.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Where's the representation, now?


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

to.the original question, thoughts on a militia movement, boys playing soldier...


----------



## bhtacticaloutdoors (Nov 17, 2013)

I know a lot of prior service military who are militia based, I don't think they are "playing soldier".


----------



## Mottmcfly (Jan 21, 2014)

bhtacticaloutdoors said:


> I know a lot of prior service military who are militia based, I don't think they are "playing soldier".


I'm sure there are Militias that are playing soldier but the few I looked at here in California seem well trained, organized and follow a sane doctrine. Not a ton of active members though.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

They would be labeled activists in commiefornia


Silverback said:


> I like your thought, have you been watching this town
> Mexico struggles to rein in armed vigilantes battling drug cartel - CNN.com
> 
> Before news spin, I was watching it and it really seems like the towns families banded together to make it a safer place against the cartel. I am rooting for them. Recently however, they have been labelled vigilantes. So what, good for them imo.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Rob Roy said:


> I did a no-no and skipped several pages to get to the end, so I apologize if my words are irrelevant this far into the conversation. My personal stance on a and all militias is that they are indeed important for many reasons, not withholding protection from our own government. In a SHTF situation though, they are my main concern. I [for lack of a better word] _fear_ a militia coming in and declaring it's own law, becoming the new government of the land, even for "our own good".
> 
> I can foresee taxation without representation in full effect, and that being the high point.


That is why, today - here and now, the militia, preppers, constitutionalists, etc. ought to have serious discussions about what they would replace this current form of government with. Even amongst the aforementioned groups you find ideologies that are 180 degrees opposite of what the founding fathers intended. Let me cite you an example: The founding fathers believed that all men are created equal and that Rights are bestowed upon us by our God (whomever the individual deems that to be) and those Rights are not subject to the whims of mortal men - they are unalienable. The other side believes that government grants rights and those "_rights_" are mere revokable privileges.

BTW, take the time and review this thread. We had a disagreement over what the militia was created for. Some among us believe that only STATE created and operated militias are constitutional. I don't know how a militia could insure the security of a free State if they had no authority to call the government when it gets too power hungry, so that alone justifies answering your fear through honest debate and discussion before the SHTF - Okay we are actually in the middle of a SHTF scenario. So, today would be the time to start discussing this.


----------



## bhtacticaloutdoors (Nov 17, 2013)

I know the Militia's in California intend to reinstate the U.S. Constitution. That's what my goal would be, and later on hopefully add more restrictions on government.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I happen to think that the obvious governmental grabs for power and control show that we need to take the power back to the people. There is no need of a "representative" government body and that is the biggest source of the degradation of the rights and freedoms in our country. the control of the entire states by a small but very populated area is another. Both can be dealt with while ensuring the wording of our rights and freedoms show that they are untouchable by anyone or group.


----------

