MILITIAS - The CONSTITUTIONAL means of dealing with government tyranny and over reach

[Norman]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

Yes it is if the following government plans to violate constitution in every area and have judges seated to pretend this isn't so. Stealing elections is also a definition of tyranny if there ever was one.

 

[White 6]

The Patriot act was indeed a totalitarian move by the conservative right wing republican lead and controlled administration o f George W Bush.

True, but the Democrats have been just as on board with reauthorizing it. They could have killed it during the Obama years with Reid running the Senate, but they didn't.

The truth of your post is self evident. Funny how if one party gets a shinning new toy of totalitarian control, when the other part comes to power, they continue to keep it buffed up, eh?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

its not about losing an election,,

Of course it is

No, it is not ABOUT an election, but that is part of it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Easy - Militias have no place in the modern world.

What you are saying then....is that the people should have no recourse to government tyranny.

I could understand a Chinese person saying this.

Dr. Love is an Oregonian, he believes Antifa’s fascism has made Portland a better place.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Militias need to become much larger and better organized.

The Constitution clearly expresses this. Clearly the intent of Militias was to keep government in check as a last resort.

If you are not yet a member of a militia, and you love America and freedom, I think now is the time.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[colfax_m]

What we are saying is that your recourse is a nonviolent one. Elections.

Then why didn't the Original Colonists simply VOTE to be Independent of Great Britain ???

If they had voted, then surely England would have respected that vote according to you?

Because they didn’t have the constitution which gave them the opportunity to do so.

But now we do.

 

[ESay]

Actually, every US state already has an organized militia, doesn't it? It is called the National Guard. Over the years the central authorities have been taking the control of these militias to the point that now they are virtually one another branch of the US military forces under the federal command.

The States just need to take back what is belonged to them.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

Where are they in the

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

'Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
"What we're seeing in the kinds of militias that we see today, these sort of self-appointed militias that have no relationship with the state government whatsoever, no authority to speak for the state or for the people of the state, these are not the kinds of militias that are referenced by the Second Amendment," says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy'.

 

[Agit8r]

Like it or not...America was founded on principles of God Given Human Rights and the control of government power.
While you may not believe in God, many do, and the Unted States of America was SOLIDLY founded on that belief.

Unfortunately, many do not believe in God. And some very wealthy and powerful people believe that neither God nor the Constitution will stand
in the way of their claim to power and control. As these claim a larger share and revoke more rights, the Constitutional answer is Militias.

But are we at a point where their rise and use is justified?

Are Militias the ONLY way to stop the over step of power and the dilution of Constitutional Rights?

Or.......

Should America simply allow the dilution and over step to continue until it is understood that the Constitution is meaningless and that those who grabbed power illegally are entitled to it?

Americans have suffered a countless barrage of Constitutional breaches and the incursions seem to be on the rise.
These affect not only Republicans, but democrats as well.

The Patriot Act for example give the government unConstitutional Powers over basic Rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Illegal Search and seizures and Warrantless searches have become widely accepted.

We are in fact losing our rights. Next up will be the Biden Administrations self proclaimed "duty" to make America "safe" by making
gun ownership very difficult if not impossible.

At what point are militias necessary to slow, stop or reverse these government grabs of power?

Or, are Militias simply outdated fantasies that have no place in the modern world?

Like community policing, there is merit to the idea of militia's to replace a standing army in times of peace. Except for nukes and such, which are an effective deterrrent to foreign hostility, but which cannot be left to common hands to deploy at a whim.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

What we are saying is that your recourse is a nonviolent one. Elections.

Then why didn't the Original Colonists simply VOTE to be Independent of Great Britain ???

If they had voted, then surely England would have respected that vote according to you?

Because they didn’t have the constitution which gave them the opportunity to do so.

But now we do.

You don't need a Constitution to VOTE.
The Constitution did not give an opportunity for voting. You are confused.
You are negating your own argument. Voting has been taking place all over the world for millennia.

You stated that voting is the ultimate solution to disputes.
You were wrong.

Militias are now needed because among other things, people have decided that stealing elections to grab power is acceptable.

 

[progressive hunter]

Actually, every US state already has an organized militia, doesn't it? It is called the National Guard. Over the years the central authorities have been taking the control of these militias to the point that now they are virtually one another branch of the US military forces under the federal command.

The States just need to take back what is belonged to them.

NOPE,,,
those are not militias,,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

Where are they in the

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

'Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
"What we're seeing in the kinds of militias that we see today, these sort of self-appointed militias that have no relationship with the state government whatsoever, no authority to speak for the state or for the people of the state, these are not the kinds of militias that are referenced by the Second Amendment," says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy'.

No, that is incorrect.

Whoever told you that the INTENT of the Constitution was not to limit government power and NOT to empower The People to defend against government over reach and tyranny, is themselves a tyrant....and a liar and deceiver.

You are listening to the wrong people

However, you do make an excellent argument for why EVERY AMERICAN who values their freedom should find a local Militia and join it today.

That said, be careful...the left is now establishing fake Militias to head off even that last resort.

 

[Norman]

I remember the days of this forum when everyone believed civil war was impossible, and I was predicting one in the following couple decades. That was last year... well ok last couple years.

Now everyone is predicting a civil war in the next two weeks almost. Won't happen, but the odds of civil war only keep increasing as everything goes exactly as predicted.

 

[Flash]

Question for my Moon Bat friends.

Now that the US will be turning full blown Communists will the American military be replacing the iconic American M-16 with the Communist made AK-47s? Maybe supplied by China Joe's Chicom buddies?

 

[DrLove]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

Where are they in the

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

'Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
"What we're seeing in the kinds of militias that we see today, these sort of self-appointed militias that have no relationship with the state government whatsoever, no authority to speak for the state or for the people of the state, these are not the kinds of militias that are referenced by the Second Amendment," says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy'.

No, that is incorrect.

Whoever told you that the INTENT of the Constitution was not to limit government power and NOT to empower The People to defend against government over reach and tyranny, is themselves a tyrant....and a liar and deceiver.

You are listening to the wrong people

However, you do make an excellent argument for why EVERY AMERICA who values their freedom should find a local Militia and join it today.

That said, be careful...the left is now establishing fake Militias to head off even that last resort.

So give us an example of how a militia would be legally entitled to forcefully respond to a "tyrannical government" - I'm not getting your point.

 

[colfax_m]

The Constitution did not give an opportunity for voting.

The constitution gives us a means to settle disputes without violence.

 

[White 6]

The Patriot act was indeed a totalitarian move by the conservative right wing republican lead and controlled administration o f George W Bush.

Bullshit. It was needed to stop Islamic terrorists. Now it is needed to stop these Nazi militias.

No it was not. You like the secret fisa courts? How about politically motivated wire taps? or maybe you like special rendition. You can be just disappeared if necessary. It was poorly crafted, poorly and shortsightedly rushed into passage and is dangerous to day to day privacy and liberty. George is how we got DHS too, isn't it? When donnie couldn't put federal troops on the streets of Portland and Seattle, who did he turn to, that actually snatched up people off the streets, blocks form any demonstration, without warrant, without charges? Gee, federal troops in unidentifiable uniforms, locked and loaded with full auto weaponry, not under the cumbersome control of the military, constrained as the military is by the constitution. Hmmm.
Have not told you bullshit. If you didn't know it already, I am telling you real shit.

 

[progressive hunter]

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

Where are they in the

Losing an election is not government tyranny and overreach.

You did not read the OP.

Posting before you do makes you a knee jerker

There are MANY examples of government over reach that have been going on for a long time.

Taz read it and so did I. Just admit that you probably think it's okay for violent militia uprisings such as we just saw in DC because idiots didn't like the result of a free and fair election.

this is about the CONSTITUTION.

MILITIAS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

You do not seem to posses the aptitude for reasonable debate.

'Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
"What we're seeing in the kinds of militias that we see today, these sort of self-appointed militias that have no relationship with the state government whatsoever, no authority to speak for the state or for the people of the state, these are not the kinds of militias that are referenced by the Second Amendment," says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy'.

No, that is incorrect.

Whoever told you that the INTENT of the Constitution was not to limit government power and NOT to empower The People to defend against government over reach and tyranny, is themselves a tyrant....and a liar and deceiver.

You are listening to the wrong people

However, you do make an excellent argument for why EVERY AMERICA who values their freedom should find a local Militia and join it today.

That said, be careful...the left is now establishing fake Militias to head off even that last resort.

So give us an example of how a militia would be legally entitled to forcefully respond to a "tyrannical government" - I'm not getting your point.

understandable,, youre a useful idiot,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution did not give an opportunity for voting.

The constitution gives us a means to settle disputes without violence.

and when that fails??? cause that has failed,,