Militia question 1

[Ed]

Close. "Touché."



I've lived in the US, and although I understand the historical reasons for wanting to arm a "militia" during the Revolutionary War, I apparently cannot get it through my thick skull that while things have changed dramatically, things have to stay the same.

It is not about wanting to arm a militia. The militia has nothing to do with it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps because things haven't changed dramatically? We still have a government that seeks to subvert and restrict our rights. There are still states and parties hostile to this country. And crime is still a problem. You must live in the Mushroom Kingdom if you think things have change so much that government tyranny, crime, and attacks from foreign entities are no longer a threat.

That is (the usual, I submit) manure.

Things have changed dramatically since the heady days of the heroic Revolution. You think we still live in a world of muskets? In a world with no technology, no computers, no mass-media, no science? Why don't you get your head out of your rectum and realize that we live in a fundamentally different world than the one Paul Revere inhabited?

That there are states (which ones??) and parties (ditto) is not necessarily evidence that the country is bad - it could just as easily be that they are wrong.

Or are you right, simply because you are against the government? That smacks of narrowminded self-righteousness.

Crime? Deal with it, instead of holing up in your homes, fully equipped with the latest arsenal from the NRA.

Nobody has claimed that there aren't threats. The key is to find the real ones, and let go of the imaginary ones, be it ever so hurtful to your ego.

Sheeesh......

 

[Luke T.]

Claus, I asked the general populace a while back and didn't get an answer, so I guess I will ask you specifically. Are there bounty hunters in Denmark, and can the local police chief deputize citizens in an emergency situation?

 

[CFLarsen]

I want to know what your agenda is here.

When I go to creationists sites and start threads titled "A Question for Creationists" I admit that my questions have probably all already been answered and that my being on that forum at all is an excersize in amusement.

What is your reason for starting this thread?

You start out with this: "I would like to hear more about this "militia" thingie, and will open 4 threads. Let's keep it on track for once, shall we?"

You are at once arrogant and condescending--likely not at all interested in hearing proponents' points of view, but hoping to draw out a soft spot and pound on it for your amusement.

If this is not the case, what is your point?

Simple: I would like to hear more about this "militia" thingie. Is that condescending and arrogant by default? I cannot recall that we have had such a thread - they seem to focus on the "right to bear arms" part.

 

[Cynical]

I don't think there is much of anything in Denmark except schmucks such as Claus Flodin. Claus doesn't know how to argue in a civil manner. Like in the post above, where he bullies and berates Tony for simply having a different point of view from the Great "I AM" Claus Flodin.

Don't expect an answer from him, Luke.


Yep. There's something rotten in Denmark.

 

[c0rbin]

Poor injured Claus. It is a wonder to me that in the hearing about it you are so willing to preach about it.

If you were content to simply hear about it, the reply button on your screen would not have been hit so many times.

So what's the agenda?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I asked the general populace a while back and didn't get an answer, so I guess I will ask you specifically. Are there bounty hunters in Denmark, and can the local police chief deputize citizens in an emergency situation?

No, there are no bounty hunters in Denmark. Sometimes, there is a reward for information, but not issued by any state function.

The local police chief cannot deputize citizens in an emergency situation. We have the Home Guard for that.

Why do you ask?

 

[Ed]

Simple: I would like to hear more about this "militia" thingie. Is that condescending and arrogant by default? I cannot recall that we have had such a thread - they seem to focus on the "right to bear arms" part.

"Militias", as they call themselves, take advantge of a number of basic rights, arms is one, assembly, speech, press etc. are others that they vocally use to advance or underscore their position.

As I think was stated pages ago, all males are part of the US militia, in the same way, I suppose, that the population of any country under attack and in extremis would be.

Again, this is seperate and distinct from the right to bear arms.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is not about wanting to arm a militia. The militia has nothing to do with it.

What has, then? I thought that was what we were discussing. (points to thread title)

 

[Jocko]

Things have changed dramatically since the heady days of the heroic Revolution.

Governments haven't changed much. People, however, are often more amenable to having their rights suborned. That much has changed, though thankfully less here than in jolly ol' Europe.

You think we still live in a world of muskets? In a world with no technology, no computers, no mass-media, no science? Why don't you get your head out of your rectum and realize that we live in a fundamentally different world than the one Paul Revere inhabited?

None of which addresses the point at hand.
Could the founding fathers have foreseen the internet? Of course not. Time to abridge free speech!
Could they have foreseen the Branch Davidians? Of course not! Time to abridge freedom of religion.
Could they have foreseen The Guardian and Fox News? Of course not! Time to abridge free press.
Could they have foreseen modern street gangs? Of coruse not! Time to abridge freedom to assemble!

BTW, Claus, I know you won't understand any of those either. It's clearly not in your nature.

That there are states (which ones??) and parties (ditto) is not necessarily evidence that the country is bad - it could just as easily be that they are wrong.

It could also be they don't rely on your sage opinion on what is right or wrong. Dang it all, we're just too used to making up our own minds 'round these here parts.

Or are you right, simply because you are against the government? That smacks of narrowminded self-righteousness.

The architects of the Constitution held similar distrust of government. You'd best step off when you talk that way about Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the men whose boots you're unworthy of licking.

Crime? Deal with it, instead of holing up in your homes, fully equipped with the latest arsenal from the NRA.

Nanny state, help me! Self-determination is just too damned scary, isn't it? And what will you do when it isn't the criminals, but your own police?

Nobody has claimed that there aren't threats. The key is to find the real ones, and let go of the imaginary ones, be it ever so hurtful to your ego.

Physician, heal thyself. Your lack of understanding of anything about American culture is so obtuse it's hysterical. Seriously.

Sheeesh......

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Will someone PLEASE take out the trash?

 

[Luke T.]

I don't think there is much of anything in Denmark except schmucks such as Claus Flodin. Claus doesn't know how to argue in a civil manner. Like in the post above, where he bullies and berates Tony for simply having a different point of view from the Great "I AM" Claus Flodin.

Don't expect an answer from him, Luke.


Yep. There's something rotten in Denmark.

Another country heard from!

 

[CFLarsen]

"Militias", as they call themselves, take advantge of a number of basic rights, arms is one, assembly, speech, press etc. are others that they vocally use to advance or underscore their position.

As I think was stated pages ago, all males are part of the US militia, in the same way, I suppose, that the population of any country under attack and in extremis would be.

Again, this is seperate and distinct from the right to bear arms.

But, if we were to follow your argument, then women do not enjoy the same number of basic rights. E.g., they don't have the right to assembly, speech, or press.

Or, perhaps some things have changed dramatically after all?

 

[Jocko]

But, if we were to follow your argument, then women do not enjoy the same number of basic rights. E.g., they don't have the right to assembly, speech, or press.

Or, perhaps some things have changed dramatically after all?

Just the location of your goalposts. How you got them way the hell out there is beyond me... but them I'm comforted by the fact that I don't much care what a snot-nosed, elitist, angry little piece of low-grade eurotrash like you thinks of anything, particularly how we like to run our country.

 

[CFLarsen]

Poor injured Claus. It is a wonder to me that in the hearing about it you are so willing to preach about it.

If you were content to simply hear about it it, the reply button on your screen would not have been hot som many times.

So what's the agenda?

I've explained it. If you don't want to believe that I am telling the truth, then that is your problem.

 

[Ed]

What has, then? I thought that was what we were discussing. (points to thread title)

OK. But recognize that the militia discussion has nothing directly to do with the right to bear arms nor the second amendment. Admittedly, having an armed population is nice if you want the militia called up but the right exists independently. As a right, as viewed by the founders, it needs no justification.

Maybe that is the problem. It does not need justification any more than free speech or worship or the press, it just 'is'. Unless you can apprehend that point you will go looking for justifications and none are needed and you will be met with silly discussions. Can you think of weapon owership in the same way as you think of freedom of speech? If not, discussion is doomed.

 

[CFLarsen]

Governments haven't changed much. People, however, are often more amenable to having their rights suborned. That much has changed, though thankfully less here than in jolly ol' Europe.

Sorry, but the Danish government cannot conduct searches of my home without a court order. Can they in your country?

Just yes or no.

None of which addresses the point at hand.

In fact, it is right on the mark.

Could the founding fathers have foreseen the internet? Of course not. Time to abridge free speech!

What are you talking about? I don't see my right to free speech limited.

Could they have foreseen the Branch Davidians? Of course not! Time to abridge freedom of religion.

No idea what you are talking about.

Could they have foreseen The Guardian and Fox News? Of course not! Time to abridge free press.

Ditto.

Could they have foreseen modern street gangs? Of coruse not! Time to abridge freedom to assemble!

Ditto.

BTW, Claus, I know you won't understand any of those either. It's clearly not in your nature.

It has nothing to do with my nature. Is it really that comfortable for you to portray me as some unreachable figure, only so you won't have to explain what you mean?

It could also be they don't rely on your sage opinion on what is right or wrong. Dang it all, we're just too used to making up our own minds 'round these here parts.

This is what I don't understand: The US has absolutely no qualms about telling others how to run their countries, but dare to suggest that things are not all peachy in Jesusland, and you get smited!

The architects of the Constitution held similar distrust of government. You'd best step off when you talk that way about Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the men whose boots you're unworthy of licking.

Fascinating, this deification of mere mortals. Jefferson? A slave owner. Madison? A slave owner. So? They were humans, not worthy of being worshipped.

Nanny state, help me! Self-determination is just too damned scary, isn't it? And what will you do when it isn't the criminals, but your own police?

Then, the courts step in. Is there a problem somewhere?

Physician, heal thyself. Your lack of understanding of anything about American culture is so obtuse it's hysterical. Seriously.

Actually, I haven't really seen any arguments that I don't understand American culture. I quite possibly understand it too well.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Will someone PLEASE take out the trash?

Yes, please live down to my expectations of you being camera fodder for Jerry Springer.

 

[Luke T.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=militia&r=67


n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

[CFLarsen]

OK. But recognize that the militia discussion has nothing directly to do with the right to bear arms nor the second amendment. Admittedly, having an armed population is nice if you want the militia called up but the right exists independently. As a right, as viewed by the founders, it needs no justification.

Maybe that is the problem. It does not need justification any more than free speech or worship or the press, it just 'is'. Unless you can apprehend that point you will go looking for justifications and none are needed and you will be met with silly discussions. Can you think of weapon owership in the same way as you think of freedom of speech? If not, discussion is doomed.

Then, perhaps I misunderstand. Where else do the basic documents of the USA mention the right to bear arms? The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

 

[c0rbin]

I've explained it. If you don't want to believe that I am telling the truth, then that is your problem.

The explanation is a half-truth.

You want to do more than "hear about it," otherwise you would not have hit the reply button.

What is your agenda? Can you say it plainly?

 

[CFLarsen]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=militia&r=67


n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Look....either you point to the historical understanding of what a militia is - and therefore, we have to judge it based on the understanding of the term from that time - or you point to the contemporary understanding of the term.

You cannot play both sides.