Private militias are criminal gangs.

[leftysergeant]

That pretty much agrees with what I said. (Ok, I said "called itself a military company". Is that where the hairs shall be split?) I'm missing the part where it says private militias are outlawed.

A militrary company is a tactical unit. The outlaw militias are totally tactical.

 

[jsfisher]

A militrary company is a tactical unit.

How did yo come up with that definition?

The outlaw militias are totally tactical.

Maybe they are and maybe they are not, but since RCW 38.40.120 doesn't outlaw tactical units, what's your point?

 

[GeeMack]

A militrary company is a tactical unit. The outlaw militias are totally tactical.

Everyone seems to be getting bored of your arguments from incredulity and ignorance, your incorrect comments on issues you are not qualified to discuss, your lies, and your desperate avoidance of offering any evidence to support your claims. Have anything new to add to your repertoire of stunts and gags, Lefty?

By the way, what did the police officer say when he took your report about those illegal militias? Oh, you didn't file the report? Isn't it a Truther strategy to mouth off on the Internet without having the guts to actually carry through with any action?

 

[Skeptic]

If they start patrolling the streets under arms and setting up check points and dragging "enemies" away, they are fair game.

(Shrug)

If you see someone patrolling the streets in a suspicious manner and you think they might be committing a crime, you have the right to call the cops. If you see someone dragging people away it's kidnapping, and you have the right to use force to stop it if there's no other way.

But why all the silly bragging? Those are the same rights everybody else has. You have no special commission; you have no extraordinary mandate. It has nothing to do with your being an ex-soldier or being "sworn to defend the Constitution".

You might as well claim that, as a sergeant in the reserves, you were given the right to kill people who disobey the traffic laws, and then explain that you meant only that you have the right to kill someone who ran a red light AND kept pursuing someone with their car with the obvious intent of deliberately running them over.

 

[Skeptic]

They were answerable to their communities, not to some sick puppy's ear crickets.

I am no fun of the militias, but legally, I fail to see the difference between being "answerable to the community" and "answering to some sick puppy's ear cricket".

The whole point of the Constitution is that actions are declared illegal or legal based on the law, not on whether they are agreeable or even sane, to Leftysergeant or anyone else.

If you form a militia that everybody, their members included, agreed WAS actually organized based on the delusions of a certified psychopath, that in itself would NOT make it illegal. All that matters is whether what they do, or do not do, breaks the law.

A country where those who Leftysergeant (or anybody else) declares "insane" are therefore deprived of their freedom is simply a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[Nosi]

They were answerable to their communities, not to some sick puppy's ear crickets.

For argument's sake, isn't one person's ear crickets another man's communities? Just arrangement's sake

 

[leftysergeant]

But why all the silly bragging? Those are the same rights everybody else has. You have no special commission; you have no extraordinary mandate. It has nothing to do with your being an ex-soldier or being "sworn to defend the Constitution".

Everybody has the right to shoot to kill if the militias start excercising police powers. They would probably not do so unless intent onoverthrowing the government, atwhich point calling 911 is pretty futile. Someone does need to point out that those whackadoodles out in the woods are NOT excercising a constitutional right, but plotting to take away ours if we keep electing liberals who want to tax the fat class.

You might as well claim that, as a sergeant in the reserves, you were given the right to kill people who disobey the traffic laws, and then explain that you meant only that you have the right to kill someone who ran a red light AND kept pursuing someone with their car with the obvious intent of deliberately running them over.

Only a right winger would come up with such an absurd comment. Force is only justified against an obvious hit-and-run driver who causes injuries or is known to be drunk.

 

[GeeMack]

Everybody has the right to shoot to kill if the militias start excercising police powers. They would probably not do so unless intent onoverthrowing the government, atwhich point calling 911 is pretty futile. Someone does need to point out that those whackadoodles out in the woods are NOT excercising a constitutional right, but plotting to take away ours if we keep electing liberals who want to tax the fat class.

Someone does need to? But someone with the guts, correct? Not some wussie who runs his mouth on the internet but lacks any real courage, correct? Because just about any old pussy can talk the talk on the Internet, but it takes someone with a bit of spine, someone who isn't cowering in fear behind a bunch of pretend badassness to point that out. Isn't that correct, Lefty? Don't you think?

Only a right winger would come up with such an absurd comment. Force is only justified against an obvious hit-and-run driver who causes injuries or is known to be drunk.

And let me guess. You're willing to back that comment with the same incredulity and ignorance that you've used to back up everything else you say? Or wait, maybe it's just your unsubstantiated opinion, the basis of most of your arguments, pretty much meaningless in context of the real world where sane people live.

 

[leftysergeant]

Everyone seems to be getting bored of your arguments from incredulity and ignorance, your incorrect comments on issues you are not qualified to discuss, your lies, and your desperate avoidance of offering any evidence to support your claims.

Why have you failed to grasp that it is against the law in most states to privately form a militia? Why have you failed to graso that they think themselves avbove the law, and that they are, thus, incapable of performing one of the chief functions of a militia, which is to preserve the rule of law?

By the way, what did the police officer say when he took your report about those illegal militias? Oh, you didn't file the report?

The law in most states just make it a misdemeanor. If they arrested everyone at all involved the thugs would go underground where they could not be watched. They would use the prosecutions as evidence that the government was persecuting them for being "patriots." Look what the nutjobs did with Waco. I am merely pointing out that there are enemies that the average person underestimates walking among us, and advising people how to handle the situation should the turds rise up out of the sewers. The cops will act if there is strong evidence that the militias are about to act out in a felonious manner. The Huttaree are just the most recent examples. Have you learned nothing from that?

Isn't it a Truther strategy to mouth off on the Internet without having the guts to actually carry through with any action?

I have mostly dealt with several congress critters on this matter, to encourage them to raise the act of forming a militia to a federal felony and to add another layer to the organized militia just so that the fools would not have any claim to legitimacy and that there would be a force on the ground and in their faces to prevent their acting out.

 

[leftysergeant]

Someone does need to? But someone with the guts, correct? Not some wussie who runs his mouth on the internet but lacks any real courage, correct? Because just about any old pussy can talk the talk on the Internet, but it takes someone with a bit of spine, someone who isn't cowering in fear behind a bunch of pretend badassness to point that out. Isn't that correct, Lefty? Don't you think?

Can we have a rational discussion here or do you just want to scream and pound your feet until I admit that the law does allowo psychotic freakzoids to organize a competing armed force to overthrow an elected government? You sound like a twoofer when you do that.

Or wait, maybe it's just your unsubstantiated opinion, the basis of most of your arguments, pretty much meaningless in context of the real world where sane people live.

Sane people do not back a supposed right to organize a gang to murder public officials if they do not get their way.

 

[jsfisher]

How lonely for you, leftsergeant, when you look to your left and nobody is there.

 

[leftysergeant]

How lonely for you, leftsergeant, when you look to your left and nobody is there.

Your point would be....?

Can any of you name a country that allowed scum like the Minutemen and Oklahoma Constitutional Militia and the Viper Militia to exist that did not, in the end suffer for it?

I am trying to make the point that there is a need for an acvtuakl legal militia and that these whackadoodles in the woods are part of the problem that a militia is supposed to address, not an answer to a problem.

Real militia are supposed to put down insurrection against a legal authgority, not to raise an insurrection.

 

[Skeptic]

Lefty --

It seems to me you're admitting that unless something like that happens -- unless there is an open armed revolt -- you don't think these folks will use force, and therefore, you agree with me that unless this (unlikely) event happens, you will not actually shoot anybody.

So why do you keep mentioning this sort of eventuality? I too, might be in a situation where I will do my best to shoot and kill people: if seventeen thugs jumps me and try to kill me in the street as I was going home from leave from reserve duty with my M-16.

But it would be ridiculous for me to use this eventuality as an excuse to keep bragging about how I, as a soldier, must always be ready to shoot to kill seventeen thugs on my own, so that it means I should be respected as some sort of really tough guy.

Why brag, like you are doing, about something that is (a) completely hypothetical, and (b) even if it occurs, won't be an event where you would have the right to act differently than anybody else?

 

[Skeptic]

Only a right winger would come up with such an absurd comment. Force is only justified against an obvious hit-and-run driver who causes injuries or is known to be drunk.

Nonsense. There were cases where a driver trying deliberately to run someone over were shot by bystanders to stop them from achieving their aim and that this was seen as self-defense (legally as well as morally). When you use your car as a deadly weapon, it's no different than using your gun as such.

 

[Skeptic]

Can we have a rational discussion here or...

To have a rational discussion, both sides must be rational.

 

[leftysergeant]

Lefty --

It seems to me you're admitting that unless something like that happens -- unless there is an open armed revolt -- you don't think these folks will use force, and therefore, you agree with me that unless this (unlikely) event happens, you will not actually shoot anybody.

Where do you get its being unlikely? Did you fail that segment of history class that dealt with Europe in the early 20th Century?

Why brag, like you are doing, about something that is (a) completely hypothetical, and (b) even if it occurs, won't be an event where you would have the right to act differently than anybody else?

The Nazi swine behind the militia movement do intend to rise up and then everyone should know that it is their duty to put them down by whatever means are at their disposal.

 

[GeeMack]

I have mostly dealt with several congress critters on this matter, to encourage them to raise the act of forming a militia to a federal felony and to add another layer to the organized militia just so that the fools would not have any claim to legitimacy and that there would be a force on the ground and in their faces to prevent their acting out.

Okay, so you haven't reported this supposed violation of the law that has you running like a scared rabbit. Interesting. Isn't it against the law to be aware of the commission of a crime and neglect to report it? Isn't that the law in every state in the nation? Of course it is. Damn those people who would sit idly by, no guts, no courage, a bunch of mouthy wussies just watching the evil take over America without so much as fulfilling their own legal duty to report it. Don't you think those people who would observe a crime like that and fail to report it are chickens, useless vermin, scum, swine, turds? Don't you think, Lefty?

Say, Lefty, you let us know when you've gotten up off your butt and actually fulfilled your legal responsibility to call the police and report this crime. I'm sure you'll agree that until then, you're a criminal just like any of those militia folks that scare you so badly, a danger to this great country we live in, eh, Lefty? Don't you think?

And what was it you proposed as the proper handling of people who are actively committing crimes that endanger the safety and freedom of the rest of us? Care to specify that again? Or are you going to back down now that it's been pointed out that you are admitting to committing a crime? Surely you wouldn't engage in a double standard. Wow, that would make you look like a renegade militia dude, or a Truther. How did you suggest we handle those people? Machine guns? Haul them off to the gulag? Is that the way we do it in a free country? Don't you think, Lefty?

 

[jsfisher]

Can any of you name a country that allowed scum like the Minutemen and Oklahoma Constitutional Militia and the Viper Militia to exist that did not, in the end suffer for it?

I already named one.

I am trying to make the point that there is a need for an acvtuakl legal militia and that these whackadoodles in the woods are part of the problem that a militia is supposed to address, not an answer to a problem.

No, your point has been, what you have repeated without evidence is the false supposition that private militias are illegal in the United States. You have oscillated between it being illegal at the federal level and illegal in most states. Neither position have you supported with fact.

Real militia are supposed to put down insurrection against a legal authgority, not to raise an insurrection.

Opinion noted.

Also noted is your continued use of the fallacy that some means all. Some ultra-left-wing liberals are stark raving mad. That doesn't mean we should round up all of them and ship them off to Bellevue.

 

[GeeMack]

Also noted is your continued use of the fallacy that some means all. Some ultra-left-wing liberals are stark raving mad. That doesn't mean we should round up all of them and ship them off to Bellevue.

Well, sure, as long as I get to decide where to draw the line between left-wing liberals and ultra-left-wing liberals. Oh, and Bellevue is too good for them. Off to the gulag with them. The gulag, I say!

 

[leftysergeant]

Okay, so you haven't reported this supposed violation of the law that has you running like a scared rabbit. Interesting. Isn't it against the law to be aware of the commission of a crime and neglect to report it? Isn't that the law in every state in the nation? Of course it is. Damn those people who would sit idly by, no guts, no courage, a bunch of mouthy wussies just watching the evil take over America without so much as fulfilling their own legal duty to report it. Don't you think those people who would observe a crime like that and fail to report it are chickens, useless vermin, scum, swine, turds? Don't you think, Lefty?

The cops are aware that the crimes are occurring, and I have passed on bits of specicific inforation as I have come accross them. I am saying that it should be a felony to belong to such organizations because they never end well.

How did you suggest we handle those people? Machine guns? Haul them off to the gulag? Is that the way we do it in a free country? Don't you think, Lefty?

Are you saying that the world would not be a better place had the government troops done that at the Feldherrenhalle?