RE: MI militia raided by FBI

RE: MI militia raided by FBI (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius You have forgot a few things in your description of what is a "legal" militia. Each state, county, and municipality has the right to define what constitutes a militia, further they are also allowed to form them without any guidance by the Federal government, and (any member of the community) can call them up at any time for the common defense of that community (see posse, or even Paul Revere). Just in case you are still confused on the subject, and without getting into all of the laws and acts that have clearly made it necessary and possible for the organization of a militia (Militia act of 1792, the Constitution, the changes in 1862 that included all races, the Dirk act, etc...). Let's just look at it in a logical sense from what we all do know, I think Jon Roland sums it up fairly well: They are not a militia until they are actually called into service, armed, cocked locked and counted as such. Until then they are citizens exercizing a right to bear arms. Threats of taking over the government by law is protected political speech. Actually moving against the government is the point at which the government would have the authority to react not before. That said the government has made a move against non-combatant citizens of the state of michigan and everyone in michigan, ohio, and indiana should write the reps condemning the unlawful detainment of their brothers and start forming class action suits to the same against those who have violated the constitutional rights of said citizens.

Thadius -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius You have forgot a few things in your description of what is a "legal" militia. Each state, county, and municipality has the right to define what constitutes a militia, further they are also allowed to form them without any guidance by the Federal government, and (any member of the community) can call them up at any time for the common defense of that community (see posse, or even Paul Revere). Just in case you are still confused on the subject, and without getting into all of the laws and acts that have clearly made it necessary and possible for the organization of a militia (Militia act of 1792, the Constitution, the changes in 1862 that included all races, the Dirk act, etc...). Let's just look at it in a logical sense from what we all do know, I think Jon Roland sums it up fairly well: They are not a militia until they are actually called into service, armed, cocked locked and counted as such. Until then they are citizens exercizing a right to bear arms. Threats of taking over the government by law is protected political speech. Actually moving against the government is the point at which the government would have the authority to react not before. That said the government has made a move against non-combatant citizens of the state of michigan and everyone in michigan, ohio, and indiana should write the reps condemning the unlawful detainment of their brothers and start forming class action suits to the same against those who have violated the constitutional rights of said citizens. Not in my state. All males between the ages of 18-45 are considered part of the unorganized militia, and are allowed to organize and or apply for state sanctioning if they desire. BTW, I live in Michigan so this is something I will be watching very closely.

Real0ne -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy the corporation is the injured party. Hunk; the corporation is purely a fiction! When the state or city sues you as a corporate fiction they are in contemp of court! Its big business and the judges are in collusion with the state hell its where they get their check too!

Real0ne -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:35:28 PM)
They made you a fiction so they could get jurisdiction and all suits are in ALL CAP TRUST OR CORPORATION NAME because they have no jurisdiction of the living man except for injury or damages to another living being. Hence they use contract to circumvent your constitutional rights. See ficticious plantiff and if you have a court case you will see your vessel name on it not your true birth appelation. ficticious plantiff [image]local://upfiles/59055/91A04B57F18944A587E82E6631FB4EB5.jpg[/image] examples are: THE UNITED STATES STATE OF MICHIGAN plaintiff vs The attorneys who represent them are committing fraud upon the court.

truckinslave -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:40:54 PM)
I neither know nor care where you found thst so-called "legal definition" of "militia", save that it was not from the Federalist or any of the Founding Fathers.

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I neither know nor care where you found thst so-called "legal definition" of "militia", save that it was not from the Federalist or any of the Founding Fathers. So much for a rational basis for discourse.

truckinslave -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:48:23 PM)
A rational basis for discourse requires rational definitions; something pulled from some off-the-wall site doesn't qualify. The definition used by the Founders does qualify.

Real0ne -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I neither know nor care where you found thst so-called "legal definition" of "militia", save that it was not from the Federalist or any of the Founding Fathers. So much for a rational basis for discourse. Like I said how many times the whole damn system is based in fraud, adverb/verb fiction and presumtions which does not matter if the presumption is true or not and often presumes the false to be true and people are tossed in jail as a consequence to the fraud. I said it many times you can take these guys down on fraud if they even let it go to court in the first place. [image]local://upfiles/59055/8B9243E966C4426392D0265FB6A0FCE1.jpg[/image]

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 1:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave A rational basis for discourse requires rational definitions; something pulled from some off-the-wall site doesn't qualify. The definition used by the Founders does qualify. Which is? Meanwhile, here's what the rest of the universe uses: http://www.answers.com/topic/militia

slvemike4u -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:06:31 PM)
I find it amusing that for a number of posters the burden of proof,as far as whether or not they were operating in a legal manner,seems to be on the actual law enforcement entities involved. Why?

Thadius -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:08:32 PM)
I was actually just reading that cite, as it was included in jlf1961's definition. It does have a decent write up of the milita transformations over the years, however it leaves out some important parts of the Dirk act, and other state initiatives. While the Dirk act moved the National Gaurd into more of a federal role (and actually made it into a reserve of the military), it did not change the standing of voluntary militia companies or the unorganized militia as recognized by USC Title 10, Sec 311 a,b 1-2. Most state laws regarding militias limit them solely with language such as: "(1) For any person to teach or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death to persons when such person knows or has reason to know or intends that such information or ability will be unlawfully employed for use in or in furtherance of a civil disorder; or (2) For any person to assemble with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death to persons when such person intends to unlawfully employ such training, practice, or instruction for use in or in furtherance of a civil disorder."

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:13:55 PM)
Seems to put the government on pretty firm footing, then. That language is pretty broad.

Thadius -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I find it amusing that for a number of posters the burden of proof,as far as whether or not they were operating in a legal manner,seems to be on the actual law enforcement entities involved. Why? I am not exactly sure what you mean with your statement and question, if I don't answer what you are asking please clarify. Why? Do the words innocent until proven guilty ring any bells? Let's try a hypothetical. If I get together on a regular basis with some veterans, we discuss politics and the constitutionality of varioius laws, and over the weekend we also do some weapons training and practice; at what point are we breaking the law? If we call our group by a name, does it then become illegal? How about if we volunteer to help the local sheriff quell a riot or some other civil disturbance? Are you going to suggest that a bounty hunter has more rights than a militia? I find it amusing that a number of posters, do not recognize the civil, historic, and legal rationale for the formation of militias. Don't misunderstand me as representing any of the hate groups that have tried to organize under that banner.

TheHeretic -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I neither know nor care where you found thst so-called "legal definition" of "militia", save that it was not from the Federalist or any of the Founding Fathers. So much for a rational basis for discourse. Like a certain media bias thread, huh?

Thadius -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:23:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Seems to put the government on pretty firm footing, then. That language is pretty broad. California probably has the strictest laws when it concerns the militia or prevention of formation. As I stated earlier, if the group mentioned in the OP has violated laws then I believe they should be punished to the fullest extent of those laws. I am still withholding judgement on whether to persecute them until more information is available as to the whys and whats...

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:24:56 PM)
As the person who strove to derail it by changing the subject on the very first response, you would know, Rich. And then scream the rules changed. Yup, no rational basis. It's like talking to some ex-girlfriend....some argument from the past pops up whenever you're feeling hormonal.

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:28:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Seems to put the government on pretty firm footing, then. That language is pretty broad. California probably has the strictest laws when it concerns the militia or prevention of formation. As I stated earlier, if the group mentioned in the OP has violated laws then I believe they should be punished to the fullest extent of those laws. I am still withholding judgement on whether to persecute them until more information is available as to the whys and whats... Here's the implication, though... Are you under the impression the FBI, Bureau of Homeland Security and Joint Terrorism Task Force routinely pick a Sunday to bash a militia without reasonable suspicious of wrong-doing?

cuckoldmepls -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:35:16 PM)
Every time we have a democratic administration, they abuse their constitutional authority unless it is a hippie cult living on a commune with marijuana as their money crop. Then they give them an award. Waco was a prime example. From what I remember, their justification for raiding Waco was that they owned automatic weapons which at the time were illegal I think. I remember Bush legalized them and although I am firmly against gun control myself, I myself thought that went a little too far. As far as I'm concerned assault weapons are just that, for offensive purposes, not defensive, although I don't have a problem with militias owning automatic weapons, including armed humvees, and even helicoptor support if it is a militia of the majority. People don't seem to realize that someday, and someday soon, all hell could break loose, and law enforcement won't stand a chance of maintaining order or protecting your neighborhoods. As always, the police never protect you from crime. They usually only arrive afterwards to investigate it, and then your relatives have to hire someone to clean up the mess. I can't understand why anyone would want to put their faith in law enforcement when the constitution clearly authorizes every American citizen to own a weapon, and join a militia. http://babelishere.webs.com/guncontrol.html

Musicmystery -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:36:59 PM)
quote: From what I remember, their justification for raiding Waco was that they owned automatic weapons which at the time were illegal So they made a raid on a camp engaged in illegal activities? Sounds reasonable to me.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: MI militia raided by FBI (3/28/2010 2:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I find it amusing that for a number of posters the burden of proof,as far as whether or not they were operating in a legal manner,seems to be on the actual law enforcement entities involved. Why? Because it's in the Constitution?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875