When CongressCritters Attack!

[applecorped]

When armed rights are the least of your issues.

 

[GeeMack]

Are you saying that if a privately-organized militia starts acting like they are a legitimate armed force, and attempt to overthrow our government, we have no right to resist?

I'm saying you claimed flat out and simply...

Private militias have no right to exist.

... and you've been asked to support that claim. Are you going to put up or shut up?

Oh, and again your dishonest goalpost shifting is noted.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Citizens also have the right to resist their government .

But not by any means they feel. A person resisting the gov't with a nuclear warhead is not in the "right."

 

[thaiboxerken]

... and you've been asked to support that claim. Are you going to put up or shut up?

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

 

[GeeMack]

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

The constitution doesn't say people have a right to peaceably assemble specifically to teach and learn and practice Thai boxing. But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right. And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so. That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

Private militias have no right to exist.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The constitution doesn't say people have a right to peaceably assemble specifically to teach and learn and practice Thai boxing.

This is true. However, neither does it defend this "right." I would consider the practice of peaceful assembly and trianing Muay Thai as a 1st Ammendment right, though.

But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right.

I agree.

And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so. That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

What reasons are there to raise a private militia, besides revolution?

 

[GeeMack]

What reasons are there to raise a private militia, besides revolution?

Some might want to organize a private military style defense organization, a militia, in order to protect themselves and their community in case, however unlikely you and I might see it, the government becomes oppressive to the point of eliminating what we currently consider our rights. Some might want to be a member of a militia out of concern for their own safety and that of their communities because of a perceived threat they feel exists because of other militias. Hell, some people might just get off on wearing camo clothing and trouncing around in the woods playing army games. Since we can't read their minds, it can be pretty difficult to guess why people want to do so many of the things they do.

But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right.

You agree.

 

[Meadmaker]

I believe the story lefty was trying to link to (back in post # 85) is "Etheridge apologizes for on-camera confrontation". (Somehow "abclocal" in the link got shortened to simply "abc", causing the problem.)

Thanks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Some might want to organize a private military style defense organization, a militia, in order to protect themselves and their community in case, however unlikely you and I might see it, the government becomes oppressive to the point of eliminating what we currently consider our rights.

So is it a right to own a nuclear weapon for the same reason?

 

[leftysergeant]

And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so.

Bull flops/ The states raise and equip and train the militia according to federal standards. Dirtbags like John Trochmann and idiot girl Angle are not in that loop unless they are the Adjutants general of their particular states. End of that part.

That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

As far as i know, all states forbid it. In Washington State, it is a misdemeanor just to assemble one.

RCW 38.40.120

 

[Meadmaker]

This has nothing to do with private behavior. This was public behavior. And it isn't about holding separate standards either (though that too is justified). It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. It matters quite a bit more if a congressman thinks he has a right to assault people on the street. One action is distasteful. The other is a crime.



It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it.



I don't care if the action is "understandable", it's not acceptable, and it's not legal. You don't have to be a perfect person to refrain from assaulting someone in this situation.



I'm not asking you to approve of their behavior. But their behavior doesn't excuse his. And he's the one who holds real power. He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine. He's the one who will stand for election. So think whatever you want to about them, it doesn't matter. What matters is what you think about Etheridge. And so far, it looks like you're trying to make excuses for what Etheridge himself understands was not excusable.

I must admit that my initial reaction was the same. I thought Etheridge's behavior was "creepy", and when someone suggested that he was drunk, that made sense to me, and still does. I don't know if there is any way to determine if he was actually drinking, but he acts at least a little bit drunk.

However, the more I thought of it, the less I liked it.

There's several things about your post which could be held to be true, but which make me very uncomofortable. For starters. there is the allegation that Etheridge's behavior is a crime. Yes, I understand that assault does not have to involve throwing a punch, but if these were ordinary citizens, no one here would be prosecuted. It's hard for me to call something criminal if no prosecutor or judge would do the same.

Second, there is the suggestion that " It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. " I'm not sure. I think it does. It's true that it doesn't really matter about their behavior for its own sake. However, I don't think you would say, "It doesn't matter if two random dudes are interfering with a Congressman when he is walking down the street." If their behavior is acceptable, it would be unsafe for Congressmen to ever appear in public without security guards. If the behavior of these "students" became commonplace, Congressmen simply couldn't safely walk down the street.

Then there's the assertion that, "It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it." I'm not sure I can accept that, either. I drive to work every weekday morning. Is everything I do from the moment I leave my house to the moment I return a matter of public record. In some sense, I suppose it is, and yet the full implications of that are disturbing to me. Is it really the case that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any dealings I have with any individual with whom I have no personal relationship? Is every single thing I do "fair game" for the media? Thats scary to contemplate. Certainly, more of what a Congressman does is a matter of public interest, but does that mean he is subject to scrutiny every minute of every day unless he is in his own home? There has to be a line somewhere.

Finally, there's the assertion that "He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine." Maybe that's true, but apparently I have the right to directly affect his life by sticking a camera in his face as he walks down the street.

Yes, his behavior is unacceptable. He said so himself, and apologized for it. After considering this incident, I'm willing to accept his apology and say it's no big deal. He lost his cool in a stressful situation. That's not good, but it's not all that bad, either.

 

[jsfisher]

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.

I don't see it in there. Neither can I interpret it to say that a person can raise a private military.

 

[leftysergeant]

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.

The 10th specifies that those rights not specificly assigned to the union or the states devolve to the people. Calling out the militia is assigned in the constitution to the states and congress.

FAIL.

 

[Brainster]

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have a right to get married? I can't see it anywhere.

 

[jsfisher]

The 10th specifies that those rights not specificly assigned to the union or the states devolve to the people. Calling out the militia is assigned in the constitution to the states and congress.

FAIL.

If it is such a big fail, why do approximately half the states bother with specific laws to regulate private militia?

The US Constitution gives Congress and the states powers over the Militia -- that being a proper noun, the name for a specific government recognized armed force. It does not in any way exclude other militia from existing.

The fail is yours.

 

[leftysergeant]

It does not in any way exclude other militia from existing.

Yes it does. To do otherwise would be to give dirtbags like David Duke and John Trochmann and idiot girl Angle the right to overturn the results of an election that they do not like.

The fail is yours.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes it does.

And yet, the existence of private militia within the US borders proves you wrong. Laws within about half the states regulating them proves you wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

And yet, the existence of private militia within the US borders proves you wrong. Laws within about half the states regulating them proves you wrong.

Show me a state law that allows them or sign for this super tanker load of fail.

 

[jsfisher]

Show me a state law that allows them or sign for this super tanker load of fail.

States wouldn't have laws allowing private militia; they'd have laws disallowing them. Washington State, for example, does have laws limiting private militia activities; Michigan, on the other hand, has laws limiting paramilitary training; and Alaska has neither.

But this brings us full circle back to the original requests for you to support your claim. You claimed private militia were illegal in the US. Evidence, please. Stop trying to push the burden of proof on others. Your claim; you support it.