also those hunting rifles will be very usefull against tanks, attack helicpters and bombers
Printable View
also those hunting rifles will be very usefull against tanks, attack helicpters and bombers
Just because something has not happened yet does not mean it will.
And just because the militias might lose does that mean we should throw down our guns.....say the police will protect us and disarm the militias?
In the USA you can own an ar15, ak47, tommy gun, mp5, sks, m1a, fal, and all sorts of hand guns like glocks, sigs, berettas, the list is endless!
Yes but elsewhere someone proposed that the second amendment gives you the right to posess tanks, helicopters, flamethrowers and bazookas.:dizzy2: So for him that rule doesn't applies. I would love to see what chaos takes over if everybody has some kind of weapon with that power of destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
A government regulated group of part time soldiers devoted to the defense of the country is not a bad idea, so long as the weapons are the property of the state and can be withdrawn at any moment. However, militiamen should not be allowed to take the guns home or use it in any other manner than in the context of the militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Screw that I want an A bomb ~;)
Well I will go and get an H-bomb, or go really un-dirty and get a neutron bomb... but very few nations would even stoop that low.
And what is the context of the militia? The statutes that they propose? I don't think so. And if we amplify that context (if it's useless) then what will result. Because the main point of every supporter here is that the militia has an eternal and inmemorial right to fight the state when it becomes too porweful, not allowing the militia to get outside that context will make this purpose useless, but amplifing the context will carry many unwanted consecuences, for example the impunity of some actions. No I think that they're obsolete, no group that encourages the use of guns is healthy, if the government want to allow it, fine, but their activities should be limited to shoot emptied cans or bottles.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Edit: sorry, this should have gone in the 2nd amendment thread
The context of a militia is to defend their country in a time of need. They should be used as part time soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
So you're saying that they're no more than other dogs of war. Well then you're against any other supporter, unless that's that I've msinterpreted the meaning of "country".Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Really? Well my vies seem to fit quite well with what Ian of Smeg says.
Militias were useful when all anyone had was an inaccurate musket and a bayonet, and when the political situation was unstable and new. Now everything is established, stable, and more to the point, half trained men with guns are useless militarily and a risk anyway. You trust young men with guns and people will die.
Well Henry you'll notice that that doesn't change my arguments at all. The question remains: Do the militias achieve their purpose right now or are they just a bunch of problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
LOL! That is right where I was today!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Lucky us that you where not born in Fallujah...... ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
I would think more of militias if militias emphasized thinking more.
As it is, too many of them are yahoos with little value. The idea of an armed citizenry coming together to defend itself has appeal, but would only make sense if gun ownership -- and training -- were mandatory (which may be worth considering).
Seamus
The vast majority of militiamen are people who entertain a romantic view of warfare and don't have the stones/can't find the time/are too preoccupied to join a proper military unit. Such as the Army. Or the Air Force. Or the Marines. You know, people actually defending the nation and its ideals. Either that or veterans out of the service looking for a surrogate social life.
The fact is, most people want the glory of defending their nation with the minimum of time, effort, exercise, and exposure to enemy fire.
And these few, these proud militiamen, who selflessly give up their weekends in the service of freedom, are all that stand between us and the vast predations of a freedom-hating government elected by our own people. God only knows that I sleep better at night knowing that these watchdogs of liberty are standing guard, rifle firmly clenched in one hand, and beer securely held in the other. Carry on gentlemen, carry on.
The "Beaver County Militia" is a militia for those that are "non violent", but are militant about being "non violent". And will fight to the death to stay "non violent."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
hahahahahahaha LOL!!!:rolleyes2: :rolleyes4: :rolleyes5: :laugh: :laugh:
Carry on. I'll be in the area all day.~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
Ceasar , why not form your own militia ?
This crowd are offering you the oppertunity on a franchise basis~;)
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/militia/militiainc.html
Militias are ok~:) . The problem is that there are oddball groups who claim they are militias and are actually misrepresenting themselves and should be categorized as militant gun clubs or something similar, not militias. A militia by definition is…
I think much of what we think we know about militias is based on the medias portrayal of them:freak: . After McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing and his connection to a militia (in Michigan of all places) the general publics impression of the militia went from, harmless beer drinking hunters and ex-military guys finding something to do so they wont have to help with chores around the house to small armies of paranoid lunatics who are stockpiling guns and bombs to take over the country.Quote:
militia noun. 1 A body of citizens enrolled and drilled in military organizations other than the regular military forces, and called out only in emergencies. 2 U.S. All able-bodied male citizens between eighteen and forty-five years of age not members of the regular military forces.
People gather together for a number of reasons, similar interests are a common reason. If people who are interested in the security of our “free State” want to gather together and organize a militia then go for it, that’s great.:balloon2: But when criminals gather together and plan crimes then they are nothing more than “gangs” and should be arrested.
Although militias don’t have the physical power* to fight a war with the military an organized militia does have influence in the community and voting power to help keep the Gov. in line by supporting good legislation and elected officials. Organizing people who are interested in the security of our “free State” is a good thing. Maybe the manner in which the militia is used has changed over the last 200 years but they can still be beneficial.
Perhaps what militias need are more good members.:bow:
Take care when making brash stereotypical comments, unless you have met an actual militia member or have been in a militia you might not really know what you are talking about. :dunce:
* - The US is a vast place and not even our own military could forcibly subjugate the entire country. We’ve seen what a difficult time they have had in Iraq, and Iraq is nowhere near as big as the US. Not that we will have one but our military could never stop a true revolution.
I would like to give another view on the militias.In a country like mine where the army is conscripted the militia is usefull,for retraining troops wich are not so important to the defence of the Nation.Here in Finland our local militias have organized under one organisation and that organisation works closely together with Finish army.