Is the US Banning Citizen Militias

[727Sky]

There's a movement in Congress to outlaw militias in the US, claiming that it will make Americans safer and help maintain public order. But the flip side of that is that if and when the government becomes tyrannical, the citizens wouldn't have the ability to defend themselves. In this episode of America Uncovered, we look at different interpretations of the Second Amendment, the difference between banning their existence and banning their actions, and why, when people think of militias, they think of conservatives. Can Militia Groups Detain Immigrants at the Border? | America Uncovered

[SomeJackleg]

There's a movement in Congress to outlaw militias in the US, claiming that it will make Americans safer and help maintain public order. But the flip side of that is that if and when the government becomes tyrannical, the citizens wouldn't have the ability to defend themselves. In this episode of America Uncovered, we look at different interpretations of the Second Amendment, the difference between banning their existence and banning their actions, and why, when people think of militias, they think of conservatives. Can Militia Groups Detain Immigrants at the Border? | America Uncovered

maybe we'll see if johson has the stones to refuse to allow it to the floor for a vote. seeing how they haven't passed many bills this session i don't think it will make before the next election. and i don't really see the dem ones being able to pull off a steale again, to many folks on all sides are very unhappy with them.

[Snarl]

They're just trying to open a 2d front on their attack of the 2d Amendment.

I consider the base effort an infringement. And, I consider any attack on the Bill of Rights as an act of Treason. One penalty: Death.

This type of BS is the EXACT reason Nancy Pelosi pushed legislation to prohibit lynching. What they really were trying to do with that isn't about an actual lynching, so much as an effort to punish anyone suggesting that the event be put into play.

Their desperate measures to control are having an opposite effect ... crazy ...

[Ninurta]

Can Militia Groups Detain Immigrants at the Border?

Well no, I don't think they have the legal authority to detain anyone on someone else's land... but with that said, they can sure as hell shoot the shit out of them and unass the AO before they get caught!

I'm a little leery of these so-called "citizens militias". Back in the day, when militias were a thing, they were drawn from the citizenry for sure, but they fell under some other authority, usually a State or local government. For instance, here militias usually fall under the jurisdiction of the local Sheriff. Once upon a time, not so long ago, the State Police in some states were known as "The Militia" rather than "State Police" or "Highway Patrol".

Around here, around the time of the Revolution, all militias were county-based. I don't know of any where the officers were appointed by the State - officers were usually elected by vote among the ranks. Militias were not usually armed by the State, either - every man was expected to bring his own arms, and to not have them meant death by Indian attack anyhow, so everyone had something to shoot with already. During Dunmore's War, the State did provide some small arms and cannons, the small arms usually being muskets, and at the end of service the soldier had the option of buying his musket from the State if he so chose. Some few did, but most preferred the rifles they already had. The State did provide powder and lead, which were both in constant critical shortage because, bureaucracy. The moral of that story is never rely on the State when it's YOUR family's lives on the line.

The problem with citizen's militias is that they answer to no one. That leaves way too much room for this one working at odds with that one, and the potential for local fiefdoms and warlordships to spring up, answerable to no one. They re little more than vigilante groups or armed gangs, as dangerous to the local population as they are to any supposed "enemy" The example of the "Home Guards" under the Confederacy in the South comes to mind. Many of those were just brigands and outlaws with a writ of authority to give them a veneer of legitimacy. Some of my ancestors were in them, and some of my ancestors laid waste to them when they got too brigand-ish.

The problem with viewing the "National Guard" of a state as "the militia" is that national Guards are subject to Federalization. For a militia to be a credible check against an overbearing central government, it cannot be subject to being brought under the authority of that government. That's just a built-in escape hatch for the feds to neutralize them and go on it's merry way.

To be effective, they have to be disciplined, subject to some higher authority, so as not to devolve into little fiefdoms and warlords, yet they cannot be subject to the authority that the are intended to counter. "Citizen's Militias" answer to no one, and are therefore a danger to everyone.

Thankfully, most of them are utterly incompetent and useless. Just an excuse to swill beer and run through the woods cosplaying GI Joe.

I think this action is probably intended to counter the "Second Amendment Sanctuary" movement, and the legitimate county militias springing up around the nation - LEGITIMATE militias. The so-called "citizens militias" would of course be caught up in that dragnet, but I think THEY should be the primary target - no one wants a budding young warlord in their own back yard.

I've been "recruited" into a couple of these citizens militias, once, many many years ago, joining to infiltrate them and find out what they were up to. They weren't a serious threat to anyone but themselves, as it turned out. They made Larry, Curly, and Moe look like bona-fide rocket scientists. Another was a more serious affair, but only intent on holding a local patch of ground, without delusions of grandeur, expansion, or conquest. Again, harmless if left alone. Not so harmless if anyone tried to take their patch, but not expansionist, certainly not to the point of becoming a danger to any legitimate government.

Bottom line is, if you're serious about having a "citizen's militia", you're not going to care if it's illegal or not. It's going to be an underground organization, and undergrounds, almost by definition, don't care about what some other government says regarding their legality. Therefore, any such legislation is moot regarding them. As we used to say around here," locks is for honest folks, and laws is for honest folks, too". Laws only prevent folks who are willing to obey them. Otherwise, they're a little less than effective.

Really, the way this legislation is worded and justified, the only thing it would eliminate is private security companies, and the guards they employ. Because of their licensing and bonding requirements, they have to care what the government says. Private citizen's militias? They don't have to care at all - no one licenses or bonds them anyhow.

.

[SomeJackleg]

This type of BS is the EXACT reason Nancy Pelosi pushed legislation to prohibit lynching. What they really were trying to do with that isn't about an actual lynching, so much as an effort to punish anyone suggesting that the event be put into play.

refresh my memory, did they include prohibiting firing squads. which i think is much more appropriate sentence for treason.

[xuenchen]

Strange because many of the "big name" militias are deep infiltrated and/or even set up from the beginning by new style COINTELPRO agents and C.I.s 

[Ninurta]

This type of BS is the EXACT reason Nancy Pelosi pushed legislation to prohibit lynching. What they really were trying to do with that isn't about an actual lynching, so much as an effort to punish anyone suggesting that the event be put into play.

refresh my memory, did they include prohibiting firing squads. which i think is much more appropriate sentence for treason.

Only firing squads composed of private citizens, as that falls under the heading of "lynch mob". Government firing squads are still ok, because a government is gonna do what a government is gonna do. One of the perks of making the rules is that you can set the rules aside for yourself.

It was Legislation for Dumbasses, anyhow. Murder is already illegal, so I don't see any way of making it MORE illegal just by passing another law. The intent was just to make lynching a Federal "hate crime", so the Feds could play in the pool, too.

"Hate crime" is itself a dumbassed concept. You don't commit crimes against the folks you love, y'know? So "hate" is kinda already built-in to the concept. The victim won't be any deader just because someone hated them - dead is dead. Nor can any such law make murder any more murderous - murder is murder, and pretty final when you think about it. If the road ends there, trying to drive any further along it just drives right over a cliff.

.

[Snarl]

"Hate crime" is itself a dumbassed concept. You don't commit crimes against the folks you love, y'know? So "hate" is kinda already built-in to the concept.

LMFAO

[SomeJackleg]

It was Legislation for Dumbasses, anyhow. Murder is already illegal, so I don't see any way of making it MORE illegal just by passing another law. The intent was just to make lynching a Federal "hate crime", so the Feds could play in the pool, too.

yeah just like about 98.5 % of the laws they pass, and it's not gonna be a deterrent. if someone wants to string up a POS, SOB, or DAB or dot their forehead, a anti lynching law is not gonna stop them.

[Ninurta]