Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now could the people fight off the US military in straight up fight? Of course not, but you have no idea how many would desert the military if ordered to fire upon US citizens. I'd bet half , at least, would turn their weapons on the government
The military without a doubt would fire on nuts. Militias, my butt. As if. As fricking if. You live in la la land if you think you and your militia would have the slightest chance.
Conhog thinks he is Paul fricking Revere pounding through the night.
do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?
Show us one person in this thread who has stated we don't have the right to bear arms.
(Ignore it again bitch)
Don't even try those games you jackass. You do this in every thread. You claim to be for something then you post drivel after drivel stating why it's wrong.
You believe all the guns should be locked up at some militia office somewhere, that's obvious to anyone who's even glanced at this thread. Same as in the Boy Scout thread you believe they have a right to keep gays out as long as they pay enough blood money.
Your games bore me. Your understanding of the COTUS is elementary at best, and you are a liar.
Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever.
Does this really need to go on Curved?
You
Are
One
Dumb
Fucker
I never said the Militia was a strictly government run organization. Even though I've explained my position you're so fucking stoopid you don't know what it is so you create strawmen then ask "if it needs to go on." No. It doesn't need to go on. You need to read my posts so you can stop making an ass of yourself.
Your claim that the framers viewed every able bodied person regardless of gender or race as being the Militia is fucking unbelievable ignorant I don't know how in the fuck you got any degrees in history unless you bought them on ebay.
do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?
Show us one person in this thread who has stated we don't have the right to bear arms.
(Ignore it again bitch)
Don't even try those games you jackass. You do this in every thread. You claim to be for something then you post drivel after drivel stating why it's wrong.
You believe all the guns should be locked up at some militia office somewhere, that's obvious to anyone who's even glanced at this thread. Same as in the Boy Scout thread you believe they have a right to keep gays out as long as they pay enough blood money.
Your games bore me. Your understanding of the COTUS is elementary at best, and you are a liar.
Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever.
Does this really need to go on Curved?
You
Are
One
Dumb
Fucker
I never said the Militia was a strictly government run organization. Even though I've explained my position you're so fucking stoopid you don't know what it is so you create strawmen then ask "if it needs to go on." No. It doesn't need to go on. You need to read my posts so you can stop making an ass of yourself.
Your claim that the framers viewed every able bodied person regardless of gender or race as being the Militia is fucking unbelievable ignorant I don't know how in the fuck you got any degrees in history unless you bought them on ebay.
Really? I wonder if you could tell me the race of the first man killed in the American Revolution?
The complexities of who was and who was not considered to be part of the citizenry in the early days of our country are quite strange, but indeed in 1776 in many parts of our country women and blacks were both afforded the very same rights as white men. Including the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Heck women AND blacks were allowed to vote in New Jersey by the state CON in 1776. So yes, by that standards women and blacks were considered to be part of the militia.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
Show us one person in this thread who has stated we don't have the right to bear arms.
(Ignore it again bitch)
Don't even try those games you jackass. You do this in every thread. You claim to be for something then you post drivel after drivel stating why it's wrong.
You believe all the guns should be locked up at some militia office somewhere, that's obvious to anyone who's even glanced at this thread. Same as in the Boy Scout thread you believe they have a right to keep gays out as long as they pay enough blood money.
Your games bore me. Your understanding of the COTUS is elementary at best, and you are a liar.
You
Are
One
Dumb
Fucker
I never said the Militia was a strictly government run organization. Even though I've explained my position you're so fucking stoopid you don't know what it is so you create strawmen then ask "if it needs to go on." No. It doesn't need to go on. You need to read my posts so you can stop making an ass of yourself.
Your claim that the framers viewed every able bodied person regardless of gender or race as being the Militia is fucking unbelievable ignorant I don't know how in the fuck you got any degrees in history unless you bought them on ebay.
Really? I wonder if you could tell me the race of the first man killed in the American Revolution?
The complexities of who was and who was not considered to be part of the citizenry in the early days of our country are quite strange, but indeed in 1776 in many parts of our country women and blacks were both afforded the very same rights as white men. Including the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Heck women AND blacks were allowed to vote in New Jersey by the state CON in 1776. So yes, by that standards women and blacks were considered to be part of the militia.
You made a blanket claim all framers viewed all able bodied persons as qualifying for the militia and that is flat wrong. I mean it is so wrong it's fucking hilarious you would even attempt to make that claim.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
ConHog, let me tell you why I disagree and on what I base my opinion.
I served quite a few years on active duty in the Army, the entire time, outside of training, in combat units with the single exception as cadre at the Airborne School. Most soldiers, while generally conservative in politics and almost every one a gun lover, do not think of militias as part of the civilian world. Most soldiers will think of a militia that is shooting or blowing things up as the "enemy", not "fellow Americans." Soldiers are trained to capture or kill the enemy and to destroy his equipment and habitations.
However, in certain circumstances, I do agree with you that the military would not turn on the civilians. For instance, if President Bush had declared martial law in the U.S., I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have immediately had him apprehended on charges of treason.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
ConHog, let me tell you why I disagree and on what I base my opinion.
I served quite a few years on active duty in the Army, the entire time, outside of training, in combat units with the single exception as cadre at the Airborne School. Most soldiers, while generally conservative in politics and almost every one a gun lover, do not think of militias as part of the civilian world. Most soldiers will think of a militia that is shooting or blowing things up as the "enemy", not "fellow Americans." Soldiers are trained to capture or kill the enemy and to destroy his equipment and habitations.
However, in certain circumstances, I do agree with you that the military would not turn on the civilians. For instance, if President Bush had declared martial law in the U.S., I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have immediately had him apprehended on charges of treason.
Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.
I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.
Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
ConHog, let me tell you why I disagree and on what I base my opinion.
I served quite a few years on active duty in the Army, the entire time, outside of training, in combat units with the single exception as cadre at the Airborne School. Most soldiers, while generally conservative in politics and almost every one a gun lover, do not think of militias as part of the civilian world. Most soldiers will think of a militia that is shooting or blowing things up as the "enemy", not "fellow Americans." Soldiers are trained to capture or kill the enemy and to destroy his equipment and habitations.
However, in certain circumstances, I do agree with you that the military would not turn on the civilians. For instance, if President Bush had declared martial law in the U.S., I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have immediately had him apprehended on charges of treason.
Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.
I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.
Like when the National Guard was deployed to a State University to ensure blacks could walk through the front door? You've already proven yourself to be really fucking dumb so there is no need for you to constantly reinforce it.
Blanket claim? I did no such thing. I may as well make the claim that you made the blanket claim that NO founding fathers believed women and blacks were equal to white men even though I just presented evidence that proves that some believed exactly that.
Check out some of my previous posts, I have been clear that in actuality the founding fathers didn't agree on much at all. That's why they only had 10 original Amendments and allowed for a way to add more. Quite clearly there was a debate from the VERY beginning on whether blacks and women were part of the citizenry and thus afforded certain rights or not. SOME of the framers believed so, some did not. I am sorry I failed to include the word SOME in my original post, but I thought you were smart enough to deduce that for yourself. I over estimated you, won't happen again.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.
I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.
Like when the National Guard was deployed to a State University to ensure blacks could walk through the front door? You've already proven yourself to be really fucking dumb so there is no need for you to constantly reinforce it.
Is this post in relation to your Kent State reference?
Be quiet Jake
No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".Still waiting for your qualifications to pontificate on the Constitution. So far, all we've got is a Comparative Religion class.Holy fuck you are embarrassingly stoopid. I've been saying all along the Militia is made up of the people so all those quotes didn't accomplish a fucking thing. It may be best if you learn what my position entails before making an ass of yourself. Again.
Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so bitch-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?
Blanket claim? I did no such thing. I may as well make the claim that you made the blanket claim that NO founding fathers believed women and blacks were equal to white men even though I just presented evidence that proves that some believed exactly that.
Check out some of my previous posts, I have been clear that in actuality the founding fathers didn't agree on much at all. That's why they only had 10 original Amendments and allowed for a way to add more. Quite clearly there was a debate from the VERY beginning on whether blacks and women were part of the citizenry and thus afforded certain rights or not. SOME of the framers believed so, some did not. I am sorry I failed to include the word SOME in my original post, but I thought you were smart enough to deduce that for yourself. I over estimated you, won't happen again.
No blanket claim?
Posted by Cochog:
"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."
You claimed the DEFINITION of "Militia" in the 2nd applied to any able bodied person.
Hoky fuck man. Bitch slapping you has become so easy it's boring.
Like when the National Guard was deployed to a State University to ensure blacks could walk through the front door? You've already proven yourself to be really fucking dumb so there is no need for you to constantly reinforce it.
Is this post in relation to your Kent State reference?
Be quiet Jake
No it isn't you dumbfuck. I gave two examples of two different situations where our Military was deployed against our own unarmed citizens you fucking ignorant twat.
I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.
I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.
ConHog, let me tell you why I disagree and on what I base my opinion.
I served quite a few years on active duty in the Army, the entire time, outside of training, in combat units with the single exception as cadre at the Airborne School. Most soldiers, while generally conservative in politics and almost every one a gun lover, do not think of militias as part of the civilian world. Most soldiers will think of a militia that is shooting or blowing things up as the "enemy", not "fellow Americans." Soldiers are trained to capture or kill the enemy and to destroy his equipment and habitations.
However, in certain circumstances, I do agree with you that the military would not turn on the civilians. For instance, if President Bush had declared martial law in the U.S., I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have immediately had him apprehended on charges of treason.
Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.
I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.
No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".Still waiting for your qualifications to pontificate on the Constitution. So far, all we've got is a Comparative Religion class.
Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so bitch-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?
ConHog, let me tell you why I disagree and on what I base my opinion.
I served quite a few years on active duty in the Army, the entire time, outside of training, in combat units with the single exception as cadre at the Airborne School. Most soldiers, while generally conservative in politics and almost every one a gun lover, do not think of militias as part of the civilian world. Most soldiers will think of a militia that is shooting or blowing things up as the "enemy", not "fellow Americans." Soldiers are trained to capture or kill the enemy and to destroy his equipment and habitations.
However, in certain circumstances, I do agree with you that the military would not turn on the civilians. For instance, if President Bush had declared martial law in the U.S., I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have immediately had him apprehended on charges of treason.
Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.
I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.
Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.
