Daddy, What's a "Militia"?

[Vodoun daVinci]

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
• Militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense.
  
  
  

I had this discussion with anti gun folks in my Family and the basis of the argument stems from the fact that the 2A says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State...and I'm not a Militia Member. According to everything I have ever read or researched I am *exactly* a member of the US Militia. It is my duty to protect and defend this State/this Country against tyranny, illegal laws, or any threats not being dealt with by the Military.

What say you? What is your perception of a Militia? How can anyone who perceives themselves as intelligent and educated (not ignorant) take the position that only Militia Members are able to keep and bear arms and I'm not one? WTF? 'Splain to me please....

VooDoo

 

[Soulezoo]

It was "every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 60".

The exact wording has changed slightly over time, mostly with respect to exact ages (16 or 55 for instance), but the basic concept remains.

 

[Soulezoo]

That said, the whole militia wording is what the left attempts to use to nullify the individual from having a weapon. So...

"Heller" determined that the 2nd is an individual right.

Proper reading of English would let you know that the clause that includes militia is not the operative clause. The operative clause is "the right of the people..."

There are excellent treatises on this out there if one takes the time to research.

 

[Soulezoo]

An excellent one I recommend is at Constitution.org.
"The Second Amendment: A Guard For Our Future Security" taken from the Idaho Law Review

Everything you need from a historical perspective is there.

 

[Fig]

 

[JOS]

I have tried to find the 1700s dictionary definition of militia ( the one used by the founders). I believe in Europe it was the citizens armed with whatever they had defending against whatever was violating them. The rich might have guns but most would not. The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. I believe that is armed with modern weaponry and trained in its use. Have not found any liberals that agree.

 

[rangerlong]

It’s not an either or scenario, the 2A is a collective right as written in the first clause, and an individual right as written in the second clause.

Use of the 2A collectively is much more dangerous to the left’s agenda. That’s why everywhere militias are discussed today the members are portrayed as cooks, incompetents, white supremacists, or criminals.
Use of the collective clause is mocked, dismissed, investigated, infiltrated, and possibly entrapped and framed.
That image has been made so pervasive in our society that even members of this site will speak of the collective clause that way while being ardent believers in the individual clause.
Compared to how the collective clause is treated the individual clause is downright beloved by the left.

 

[Aries256]

My definition, anyone that can hold a gun. Man, woman, young, old. To defend their country from invaders, and domestic enemies like the libtards.

 

[Soulezoo]

I have tried to find the 1700s dictionary definition of militia ( the one used by the founders). I believe in Europe it was the citizens armed with whatever they had defending against whatever was violating them. The rich might have guns but most would not. The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. I believe that is armed with modern weaponry and trained in its use. Have not found any liberals that agree.

The dictionary most likely in use of that day would be the Oxford dictionary. In early 1800's Noah Webster produced his first attempt at a dictionary to standardize spelling and pronunciation and meanings of words in that day (many of his changes took hold, many did not) but you can gain an inference from that. (Full disclosure, when I was in Christian schools growing up, we were obliged to purchase a copy of "Noah's Ark" dictionary and all of our English classes emanated from that and even had its uses in our Latin classes.)

Anyway you need not have to go to that trouble as Alexander Hamilton was kind enough to define the term of militia and what "well regulated" meant in the Federalist Papers.

So the militia was the entire body of yeomanry within the population (later defined as all able bodied males between 16 and 60 and subsequently those ages changed slightly over time) and well regulated was meant as trained and organized (I am simplifying here).

For those that like to read and want in depth knowledge and not just summaries or opinions, this is the best documentary you can obtain:

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

It's amazing to me the amount of material that exists trying to "explain" or clarify the Second Amendment. Why would this be? I mean, I know why it is that some people can't understand a simple sentence written in English - they have an Agenda so they want to cast doubt and question where none exists. Why is it so convoluted?

The whole concept and then wording is simple. I have never understood the need to clarify it or explain it.

It's fucking simple, no?

VooDoo

 

[Soulezoo]

I agree it's very simple and when understood in the phraseology of the day, it's very plain. However, as you infer, folks of today wish to twist the meaning to fit an agenda they espouse.
Typically, this is directly against the true meaning of the second amendment and so the spin happens.
It's common for people to do two things: first to project the thinking of today back to then and apply it; or two, apply the whole " they could not have foreseen the destructive nature of today's weapons and they would not allow that today" which is pure BS deflection on why the fathers wanted the second. Which of course had nothing to do with the weapons but rather the reasons why they were needed.
The Bill of Rights were insisted upon by the "Anti-Federalists" of the day to limit government power and Madison did incorporate them. The Second Amendment and its premises were agreed upon by Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike.

 

[Longshot231]

I know that this is an old thread but find that this article is relevant to the past discussion.

Keep in mind that the bozo writing this article is anti-gun and also sounds like he's anti-bill-of-rights. He would deny that but his writing poo-poos the idea that people have a right to peaceably assemble.

His idea of peaceable assembly is without firearms. In his world, a person would have 2nd amendment rights but just cannot exercise those rights with other people.

I'm being generous here with respect to his views on the 2nd amendment. Deep down, I don't think he gives two Hershey squirts about the 2nd amendment.

What's amazing to me is that the bill to repeal the ban on private militias is backed by the Idaho National Guard.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article258312848.html

 

[LawnMM]

Typical liberal argument.

It's saying that a militia is so so important that every citizens right to be armed is guaranteed.

It doesn't say ONLY militia members right to be armed, it says the right of the people. The militia is comprised of the people, whomever is necessary at the time.

Whether you're currently part of an active militia is irrelevant. The point is you're permitted by the founding document to be armed at all times so that if the need for a militia arises, you're thusly armed or "well regulated" to use the parlance of the time.

If they don't like it and want to usher in communism they should speed up the process and renounce their citizenship and move to Chyna like skater girl who flipped in the Olympics and works in the dog food gulag now.

She may be a commie slave for the rest of her years but I respect her commitment to her beliefs and willingness to go be with her fellow slaves now instead of 100 years from now.

 

[addertooth]

I think a few postings back hit on a key element. The left has been working very hard to "redefine" the meaning of (even) well known words like "woman", in order to work around existing laws which used (what was once) plainly worded language. Those who are pro 2a understand that "well regulated" means well trained/equipped. However, with the drift of language in America, in modern language if someone said "The meat industry is 'well regulated'" it would have a different interpretation. It is the modern interpretation which has to be overcome, as it no longer aligns with the meaning *at the time it was drafted*.

The free press has certainly been working overtime to also drift the meaning of other associated words, such as Militia, and Assault Weapon. So yes, the left has selectively drifted the meaning of key words in order to achieve their goals and agenda. I expect more of the same.

 

[OldSalty2]

I think a few postings back hit on a key element. The left has been working very hard to "redefine" the meaning of (even) well known words like "woman", in order to work around existing laws which used (what was once) plainly worded language. Those who are pro 2a understand that "well regulated" means well trained/equipped. However, with the drift of language in America, in modern language if someone said "The meat industry is 'well regulated'" it would have a different interpretation. It is the modern interpretation which has to be overcome, as it no longer aligns with the meaning *at the time it was drafted*.

The free press has certainly been working overtime to also drift the meaning of other associated words, such as Militia, and Assault Weapon. So yes, the left has selectively drifted the meaning of key words in order to achieve their goals and agenda. I expect more of the same.

The constitution was not written in a vacuum. Plenty of writings support what the framers meant.

 

[rlsmith1]

Typical liberal argument.

It's saying that a militia is so so important that every citizens right to be armed is guaranteed.

It doesn't say ONLY militia members right to be armed, it says the right of the people. The militia is comprised of the people, whomever is necessary at the time.

Whether you're currently part of an active militia is irrelevant. The point is you're permitted by the founding document to be armed at all times so that if the need for a militia arises, you're thusly armed or "well regulated" to use the parlance of the time.

If they don't like it and want to usher in communism they should speed up the process and renounce their citizenship and move to Chyna like skater girl who flipped in the Olympics and works in the dog food gulag now.

She may be a commie slave for the rest of her years but I respect her commitment to her beliefs and willingness to go be with her fellow slaves now instead of 100 years from now.

You think it will take 100 years? Seems like we are on track for 10-15

 

[LawnMM]

You think it will take 100 years? Seems like we are on track for 10-15

I've always said and still believe their game is incrementalism. Frog in the pot of gradually hotter water.

Could they go for broke faster, sure, but I don't see it. Every major communist / socialist regime has had to disarm it's population before it can really start being abusive.

We're the most armed to the teeth society in human history. The logistics of trying to disarm the US alone is enough to give the person contemplating the task a migraine.

Use the common 40 / 40 / 20 political rule of thumb. 40% are conservative, 40% are liberal, 20% are undecided and swing back and forth.

That 40%-60% might be all for "democratic socialism" when it means paying for their gender studies degrees that never led to employment or for new batteries in an electric car.

When the atrocities start, the real nasty shit, and people realize they're ALL slaves and not part of the ruling class... they may very well decide they don't want to play any more.

As much as we joke around, Democrats do own guns and they do shoot. They're buying in record numbers right now.

It would be nice if they looked at history so we could skip learning lessons the hard way but people are hard headed.

Canada is way more socialist than we are and they shut down all of Ottowa with some trucks and their retard government can't figure out what to do about it. They did it without firing a shot.

 

[DuneBoer]

 

[TexPatriot]

Militias are white-supremacy groups, Sir.

 

[TexPatriot]

TF?

And whats that middle guy reaching for?

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

My current Way of dealing with folks who want to limit gun ownership/infringe is to tell them point blank that it does not matter how they "interpret" the words and they can play games with it all they want but the meaning of the words doesn't change according to someone's views, politics, or personal agenda. It means what it says and all the brow beating and convolution does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Their response is virtually always that "We have to do something about gun violence in America....No guns will equal no gun violence" Which anyone who has really thought about the Root Causes of Gun Violence knows is just not true. I tell them "If you *really* believe the Root Cause of Gun Violence in America is the mere possession of a firearm then you have a Constitution Approved avenue to resolution"

"Just overturn the 2nd Amendment. Like getting rid of Prohibition, get the necessary Legal support to change the Constitution because otherwise I *must* resist you taking my Rights guaranteed under the current Constitution and *must* defend the existing Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic" They have a Path towards removing ownership of Firearms - change the Constitution. I'll wait while ya'll do that....

"But that's impossible....even if it can be done it will cost a lot of money and take decades to get that kind of support" Exactly. So start looking for the real reasons and causes for Gun Violence and use the existing laws to find the Root Causes and eliminate them. But leave my Rights alone - I'm not your problem. The longer they ignore the Root cause and seek to take my Rights, the longer there will be "Gun Violence". No problem can be solved without finding the true cause of the problem.

VooDoo

 

[308pirate]

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
• Militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense.
  

I had this discussion with anti gun folks in my Family and the basis of the argument stems from the fact that the 2A says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State...and I'm not a Militia Member. According to everything I have ever read or researched I am *exactly* a member of the US Militia. It is my duty to protect and defend this State/this Country against tyranny, illegal laws, or any threats not being dealt with by the Military.

What say you? What is your perception of a Militia? How can anyone who perceives themselves as intelligent and educated (not ignorant) take the position that only Militia Members are able to keep and bear arms and I'm not one? WTF? 'Splain to me please....

VooDoo

Just show them this

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[308pirate]

Militias are white-supremacy groups, Sir.

Who is that cuckold?

 

[MarinePMI]

I think a few postings back hit on a key element. The left has been working very hard to "redefine" the meaning of (even) well known words like "woman", in order to work around existing laws which used (what was once) plainly worded language. Those who are pro 2a understand that "well regulated" means well trained/equipped. However, with the drift of language in America, in modern language if someone said "The meat industry is 'well regulated'" it would have a different interpretation. It is the modern interpretation which has to be overcome, as it no longer aligns with the meaning *at the time it was drafted*.

The free press has certainly been working overtime to also drift the meaning of other associated words, such as Militia, and Assault Weapon. So yes, the left has selectively drifted the meaning of key words in order to achieve their goals and agenda. I expect more of the same.

And that is why the obscure, and often not talked about, SCOTUS case this year (AHA v. Becerra) is so important. It could conceivably neuter the Federal agencies (via their interpretations of law) that they use to enforce (and over reach) their authority. EPA, IRS, HHS...all of them.

Of all the cases being ruled on this year, I contend that this one actually has the greatest implications for pushing back on years of hubris brought about by creative interpretation of laws and policies to circumvent the will of the people by our Federal government. Perhaps that is why no one is really talking about it...

 

[Long Range 338]

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
• Militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense.
  
  
  

I had this discussion with anti gun folks in my Family and the basis of the argument stems from the fact that the 2A says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State...and I'm not a Militia Member. According to everything I have ever read or researched I am *exactly* a member of the US Militia. It is my duty to protect and defend this State/this Country against tyranny, illegal laws, or any threats not being dealt with by the Military.

What say you? What is your perception of a Militia? How can anyone who perceives themselves as intelligent and educated (not ignorant) take the position that only Militia Members are able to keep and bear arms and I'm not one? WTF? 'Splain to me please....

VooDoo

Only willful ignorance with intentional misrepresentation of the wording allows for any confusion…. Or in other words you have to be a freedom hating communist who wishes to be undeterred in your tyrannical pursuit against a population who might otherwise have the means to defend themselves from your oppression.

The founding fathers were very selective in their wording and intent. With the smallest amount of interest one understands the context from which the 2A was established and it had nothing to do with making anyone safe.

 

[rlsmith1]

I've always said and still believe their game is incrementalism. Frog in the pot of gradually hotter water.

Could they go for broke faster, sure, but I don't see it. Every major communist / socialist regime has had to disarm it's population before it can really start being abusive.

We're the most armed to the teeth society in human history. The logistics of trying to disarm the US alone is enough to give the person contemplating the task a migraine.

Use the common 40 / 40 / 20 political rule of thumb. 40% are conservative, 40% are liberal, 20% are undecided and swing back and forth.

That 40%-60% might be all for "democratic socialism" when it means paying for their gender studies degrees that never led to employment or for new batteries in an electric car.

When the atrocities start, the real nasty shit, and people realize they're ALL slaves and not part of the ruling class... they may very well decide they don't want to play any more.

As much as we joke around, Democrats do own guns and they do shoot. They're buying in record numbers right now.

It would be nice if they looked at history so we could skip learning lessons the hard way but people are hard headed.

Canada is way more socialist than we are and they shut down all of Ottowa with some trucks and their retard government can't figure out what to do about it. They did it without firing a shot.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, I've thought of the boiling frog often and I don't know how to get more people to realize it (let alone what to do myself).

Taking a play from the playbook of the founders, sharing information (they used the papers, we seem to be using YT and others) seems to be the best course of action. All out conflict is absolutely the last resort but I don't know that many know how to truly avoid it. In many ways we are 20-40 years behind the UK socially and they haven't hit a tipping point (but they are not an armed populace either). As people know and are thinking, society does start to change (peacefully).

As for democrats and guns, there is a real amount of military personnel who are thinking less independently and more focused on "following orders" and "doing my job". The police are much closer to the edge from what I've seen.

Love what's happening in Ottawa and hopefully that brings some of their gov back in check

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

Only willful ignorance with intentional misrepresentation of the wording allows for any confusion…. Or in other words you have to be a freedom hating communist who wishes to be undeterred in your tyrannical pursuit against a population who might otherwise have the means to defend themselves from your oppression.

The founding fathers were very selective in their wording and intent. With the smallest amount of interest one understands the context from which the 2A was established and it had nothing to do with making anyone safe.

I have to disagree on this point. The people that I know who think that gun ownership/possession should be limited or banned are not freedom hating communists who wish to be undeterred in their tyrannical pursuit against a population who might otherwise have the means to defend themselves from their oppression. They are just scared, simple minded folks who think they can keep their families safe by taking bad things away from from everyone as if that will solve the problem.

They aren't Communists and have no agenda of death, destruction, repression. We all know that if they succeed that repression and loss of our Rights and Freedoms will have had the door opened to those eventualities. They are not Communists (quite the contrary all of the people I have had this discussion with are full blown Capitalists) they are just scared stupid people who do not think deeply and have failed to learn the fact in Life that *no* problem can be solved/mitigated until the Root Cause of that failure has been identified - they are like frustrated children thrashing and conjecturing about shit they know nothing about. I do not believe it is "willful". Most of these people are just very shallow thinkers who have been Civilized to the point that even the intimation that something could turn violent means that there are scary tools that need to be gathered up and locked up.

IMO/YMMV.

VooDoo

 

[Long Range 338]

I have to disagree on this point. The people that I know who think that gun ownership/possession should be limited or banned are not freedom hating communists who wish to be undeterred in their tyrannical pursuit against a population who might otherwise have the means to defend themselves from their oppression. They are just scared, simple minded folks who think they can keep their families safe by taking bad things away from from everyone as if that will solve the problem.

They aren't Communists and have no agenda of death, destruction, repression. We all know that if they succeed that repression and loss of our Rights and Freedoms will have had the door opened to those eventualities. They are not Communists (quite the contrary all of the people I have had this discussion with are full blown Capitalists) they are just scared stupid people who do not think deeply and have failed to learn the fact in Life that *no* problem can be solved/mitigated until the Root Cause of that failure has been identified - they are like frustrated children thrashing and conjecturing about shit they know nothing about. I do not believe it is "willful". Most of these people are just very shallow thinkers who have been Civilized to the point that even the intimation that something could turn violent means that there are scary tools that need to be gathered up and locked up.

IMO/YMMV.

VooDoo

I’m speaking of the activists, politicians, and academia who try to interpret the 2A to mean what it does not. They know the endgame and are willfully involved.
Scared masses are guilty of not knowing or understanding the basis of our country and govt. I have little sympathy for them though as somehow depriving others of their rights for the sake of feeling safe is justified in their minds. Their rights are sacred, yours are not. We cannot deprive anyone of their rights as it leads to the incrementalism mentioned above.

 

[TheHorta]

This is an unwise (and incorrect) argument.

You don’t get your rights — 2A or otherwise — from a piece of paper. The Constitution exists SOLELY to restrict and define the reach of Federal Government. The Constitution does not grant ANY rights — it is designed to keep GOV from infringing on our “certain inalienable rights” that we inherently possess.

 

[LawnMM]

The police are much closer to the edge from what I've seen.

Respectfully, you haven't seen anything. You can't compare what's going on in Canada or Australia to US law enforcement.

You have to realize while they're all cops, they work in different societies and countries.

It's a much smaller leap to convince a force of Cops used to their populace functioning under a level of oppression to go out and oppress them further because it's culturally normal for them.

I don't think you'd get the same rate of participation from LE here in taking away rights from citizens they've always had.

Likewise... these fucks that have been fanning the flames of division and destruction in America, BLM / Antifa, etc... those aren't citizens fighting for their rights or the proper treatment of others. So don't think police applying some hickory shampoo or breaking up their good time is indicative of the treatment of regular folks.

It doesn't mean anything.

 

[rlsmith1]

This is an unwise (and incorrect) argument.

You don’t get your rights — 2A or otherwise — from a piece of paper. The Constitution exists SOLELY to restrict and define the reach of Federal Government. The Constitution does not grant ANY rights — it is designed to keep GOV from infringing on our “certain inalienable rights” that we inherently possess.

If you don't want to say it, I will: God given rights given to all men!

 

[Long Range 338]

This is an unwise (and incorrect) argument.

You don’t get your rights — 2A or otherwise — from a piece of paper. The Constitution exists SOLELY to restrict and define the reach of Federal Government. The Constitution does not grant ANY rights — it is designed to keep GOV from infringing on our “certain inalienable rights” that we inherently possess.

You are 100% correct but good luck getting your government officials and courts to uphold what should be an easily accepted precedent.

 

[TheHorta]

If you don't want to say it, I will: God given rights given to all men!

While I certainly agree, the problem is it then can morph into a “religious” debate. It’s easier to agree that all humans are born with the same “rights” that no other human or group of humans have a “right” to infringe upon. I find something that they love — maybe it’s homosexual marriage or gender whatever — then link their perceived “rights” to my perceived “rights” so we’re at least marching in the same direction.

 

[rlsmith1]

Respectfully, you haven't seen anything. You can't compare what's going on in Canada or Australia to US law enforcement.

You have to realize while they're all cops, they work in different societies and countries.

It's a much smaller leap to convince a force of Cops used to their populace functioning under a level of oppression to go out and oppress them further because it's culturally normal for them.

I don't think you'd get the same rate of participation from LE here in taking away rights from citizens they've always had.

Likewise... these fucks that have been fanning the flames of division and destruction in America, BLM / Antifa, etc... those aren't citizens fighting for their rights or the proper treatment of others. So don't think police applying some hickory shampoo or breaking up their good time is indicative of the treatment of regular folks.

It doesn't mean anything.

I wasn't trying to compare the Canadian police to the US. Not sure what you mean by I haven't seen anything but I've seen corrupt local police in South America while I was doing school down there.

What I meant by my statement of the US police being closer to the edge, I mean police is more likely to enforce unconstitutional law than the US military. I have not had direct exposure to the current military outside of a few friends and family so I could be off there too but that's how I see it. I do think the number of those that would enforce unconstitutional laws is higher than I'd like to admit (even here in Iowa)

 

[LawnMM]

I wasn't trying to compare the Canadian police to the US. Not sure what you mean by I haven't seen anything but I've seen corrupt local police in South America while I was doing school down there.

What I meant by my statement of the US police being closer to the edge, I mean police is more likely to enforce unconstitutional law than the US military. I have not had direct exposure to the current military outside of a few friends and family so I could be off there too but that's how I see it. I do think the number of those that would enforce unconstitutional laws is higher than I'd like to admit (even here in Iowa)

You said you think it's likely based on "what you've seen"...

South America, irrelevant, for the same reasons as Canada and Australia. What have you seen here that makes you think it's so likely?

Who's being oppressed by the police on any kind of large scale? I'm sure if you go scouring through YouTube you'll find a couple Barney Fife types stepping on their dicks somewhere but it's never going to be all in for or against.

What matters is the majority. I can tell you how much participation I've seen in all the wuflu mandate corona bullshit here from my department... zero. Which is saying something in a liberal hippy state and AO.

I'm sure some retard probably pushed it to the limit and beyond somewhere to prompt a lawsuit or to make a point rather than accomplish anything meaningful and got himself arrested but I've seen zero... ZERO arrests related to any of that dumb shit.

People still have the right to ask you to leave, and I always point that out to people that don't want to mask, you can still be arrested for trespassing so don't fall for the trap.

Hit em in the wallet and go spend your money elsewhere.

 

[rlsmith1]

You said you think it's likely based on "what you've seen"...

South America, irrelevant, for the same reasons as Canada and Australia. What have you seen here that makes you think it's so likely?

Who's being oppressed by the police on any kind of large scale? I'm sure if you go scouring through YouTube you'll find a couple Barney Fife types stepping on their dicks somewhere but it's never going to be all in for or against.

What matters is the majority. I can tell you how much participation I've seen in all the wuflu mandate corona bullshit here from my department... zero. Which is saying something in a liberal hippy state and AO.

I'm sure some retard probably pushed it to the limit and beyond somewhere to prompt a lawsuit or to make a point rather than accomplish anything meaningful and got himself arrested but I've seen zero... ZERO arrests related to any of that dumb shit.

People still have the right to ask you to leave, and I always point that out to people that don't want to mask, you can still be arrested for trespassing so don't fall for the trap.

Hit em in the wallet and go spend your money elsewhere.

I must have misunderstood then when you brought Australia and Canada into it. Unfortunately, those countries don't have the same Constitution we do so to say they are parallel to us isn't accurate (I think we agree on that).

Oppressed? Not anyone yet that I'm aware of. 2020 was very volatile and I hope you're right that a large number of PDs would stand up in the face of oppressive laws but as you said, they won't enforce a mask mandate but they will enforce trespassing. The end result is the same and in some ways they might as well have just enforced the mask bit first. I realize a society without order is difficult and that is probably a pickle many officers find themselves in.

This is getting theoretical really quick but I'd like to hear your solution to the frog in hot water situation we find ourselves in. Is there a peaceful way out? I think we can all agree peaceful change is the best change. If there was a country freer that us, I'd rather move there than try to fight an uphill battle here.

And please don't get me wrong, I love this country and think it is far and away the best on earth so don't take my negative attitude as whining about how terrible my life is

 

[LawnMM]

they won't enforce a mask mandate but they will enforce trespassing. The end result is the same

That's naive and ignorant. Police have ALWAYS enforced trespassing, it's a law. Police are law enforcement... that's the job. That a business owner wised up that police won't make an arrest for a mask but will for trespassing is crying over spilled milk.

LE can't not enforce written law because doing so removes someone from a location they aren't wanted at for another reason.

Trespassing doesn't specify WHY you aren't wanted there, only that you've been told to leave and have refused.

As to your question about the boiling frog, there's another one about boiling crabs. When one tries to climb out... know what happens? The others pull him back in.

The obvious answer is disobedience but most people don't have the stones until it affects them personally. They're fine in the water till it's too hot FOR THEM. Till then they're ambivalent.

I'm over trying to convince people so I'm along for the ride and we'll see where it goes.

Best bet I think is information sharing. Let people see the corruption and decide for themselves. That's what the media is supposed to do and stopped doing so there's a void there.

 

[UKDslayer]

I've always said and still believe their game is incrementalism

The game is incremental until opportunities arise that allow more acute "pushes". Just like COOF allowed a massive amount restriction of freedoms, surges in violence and crime no doubt will be used to shut some down2A. I watched all of one hour news Saturday morning and there was 3 cop, concluding one SWAT, shootings. I wouldn't be surprise if they sacrificed one of their own in an assassination (or attempt) to FF things along quicker.

 

[rlsmith1]

That's naive and ignorant. Police have ALWAYS enforced trespassing, it's a law. Police are law enforcement... that's the job. That a business owner wised up that police won't make an arrest for a mask but will for trespassing is crying over spilled milk.

LE can't not enforce written law because doing so removes someone from a location they aren't wanted at for another reason.

Trespassing doesn't specify WHY you aren't wanted there, only that you've been told to leave and have refused.

I don't think I'm being naïve, I agree it's a law (no trespassing) that should be enforced but essentially the result is the same as if they had simply enforced the mask mandate to start. Basically it feels like a game of checkers where no matter which square you choose, you're getting jumped (if it's not the mask mandate, it's trespassing). Believe me, I don't envy the officers in that situation because you're right, choosing to not enforce a trespassing charge really changes how society works (in a bad way).

Totally agree on information sharing. Buckle up, it's going to be quite the ride...

 

[UKDslayer]

As much as we joke around, Democrats do own guns and they do shoot. They're buying in record numbers right now.

But they are buying because of their own propagated violence/crime wave and defund the police bit. How many are training in carbine, PR, and tactics? How many train regularly? I owned a handgun a decade before I knew how to clear a malfunction. Would it be our duty to exclude them, given how many of the military will be pushed into that role of crushing militias?

 

[LawnMM]

When the lead starts flying I'll take anybody on my team that's willing to fight the other team.

Numbers matter. You wanna be petty? Battle ain't the place. Divide and conquer, remember? You're dividing yourselves and making it easier for them.

I'm not saying give em a tour of your house and provisions but if the glowbois are coming down the street and your Bernie sticker neighbor shows up with his new AR put him on point, at least he can suck up the first few rounds

I wouldn't tell em to go home and you never know, maybe you'll be laying there with a bullet in your foot and he'll be the one to drag you behind cover. Better than doing it alone.