Open Mic Part 4

All subject are Open for discussion.



  1. 😎

  2. Government run healthcare, Deny, deny, deny.

    And to think some people think that govt run healthcare is the way to go. 🙄

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Not surprising. Consider that for decades the government prevent asbestos use in the construction of homes, yet allowed continued use of military housing for military families containing asbestos. Housing that had to be destroyed when bases were closed because it was substandard for occupation.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Also, if I may add, it isn’t about government run healthcare – it’s about government liability. Which as we know from years of Vietnam vets battling with the VA/Government of Agent Orange is nothing something the government admits easily.

  3. At least in Venezuela, the fairness ideals of Communism will play out the way the were intended. Hunger for all 🙄 And to think there are people who want this kind of governance 🙄

  4. @ JAC… the mission of Tora Bora

    The first problem was trying to run an operation from Washington DC and the Pentagon. The second problem was that of the CIA and the fact that the military and the CIA do not get along and would not share information. The third problem was relying on Afghan Tribal leaders and believing in them.

    Tactically, we were stopped from mining the passes between Tora Bora and the Pakistan Border. Those orders were issued by the Pentagon through the CIA. We were also stopped from the bombing campaign. Those orders were issued through the CIA to the Pentagon.We were also not allowed to seal the escape routes from Tora Bora using US Special Forces troops.Those orders were issued by the Pentagon through the CIA. It is impossible to conduct a war relying civilian authority from 10,000 miles away regardless of our technology. Technology WILL NEVER REPLACE boots on the ground. The CIA was totally involved and remember that they are also a civilian organization regardless of their military style and past military members. In war, it is totally impossible to fight one with diplomacy. Either do a diplomatic solution without troops on the ground or when you put troops on the ground, the end result should be to win. Period.

    For some strange reason, this was going to be an Afghan operation. They were the ones that were going to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. Trusting the indigenous population is a terrible mistake. It has always been a terrible mistake. Afghanistan is run by warlords. There is no central government except by proxy. The CIA paid war lords for their loyalty and even then, their loyalty only extended to money.

    The cease fire was brokered by a war lord directly to the Taliban and no American Troops were allowed to advance nor secure escape routes. The Taliban were backed up and totally surrounded and about to be wiped out……but the cease fire, arranged between a Taliban leader and a war lord without American knowledge was deliberately done to allow Bin Laden and 200 fighters to escape to Pakistan aided by Pakistani border security.

    The Afghan war was over in Tora Bora….the resistance and its entire leadership was about to be totally wiped out. Three times, special forces troops had Bin Laden dead in sights and were ordered not to fire. These orders came from the Pentagon through the CIA. It was to be a total Afghan operation.

    By not securing the passes behind Tora Bora with American Troops, not mining the border between Afghanistan/Tora Bora and Pakistan allowed freedom of movement, by not being allowed to secure the immediate escape routes from the cave complex with American Special Forces, and by not being allowed to pursue the escaping Taliban with air power allowed for the immediate escape of Bin Laden.

    Special Note… one time, a Special Forces 7 man unit actually penetrated the cave complex from the rear and were ordered out…..and they were ordered out with instructions to not blow the cave escape route nor set up an ambush to prevent them from escaping.

    I reiterate… cannot….CANNOT….fight a war with civilian authority. Once the decision to introduce the military is made……then let the military win it.

    • Thanks for the historical look at that mess. Nothing surprises me anymore coming from DC.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir, hope all is well.

      That is consistent with my memory, except for the SF team having the cave access. Did not know that, which makes my inquiry even more concerned.

      Do you have any idea WHO in the Pentagon gave the order? Who in the CIC staff gave the order to the Pentagon?? And of course WHY??

      I knew the general operation was to be Afghan driven, and I think that was a good thing, at least on the surface. However, I had never heard they were also to be the ones to get bin Laden himself. And I expected our command and control to function normally, behind scenes, for OUR SF and CIA ops.

      I remember some accounts of the SF folks having eyes on and there being conflicting intell from the Afghan leaders in the local area. In a case like that there should be no question…you go with your OWN people’s assessment.

      If we cannot identity the Who and Why it all starts looking like the typical cluster that happens when the Civilian and Upper Military Leadership get to “Politically Cozy” with each other.

      • The WHO……well, sir, therein lies the conundrum. The political adversary in the whole mess was actually Pakistan. wiping out the Taliban puts a huge strain on Pakistan, which was getting serious money from the US…not to mention the overrated nuclear component.The Taliban was putting serious pressure on the Pakistani govt who put the pressure on the US govt. SOOOOOOO…the WHO had to stretch to the POTUS and the atypical political chessboard. The Taliban actually has political control over Pakistan although everybody wishes to deny same.The WHO in the Pentagon…I would look to the Joint Chiefs.

        As to the Afghan Operation…that was totally driven by political choice. I only know of one POTUS, in my experience, that actually let the military run its operations and that was Reagan. The Afghans were to actually do the heavy fighting and get the credit for Bin Laden….with SF help. The Afghans were poorly trained and had no independent SF operatives. But, Bin Laden was cornered and was about to die when a deal was cut with one of the war lords….errr…..Afghan Commanders. One must also understand that there were and is not now, a centralized military command. It is shared with regional lords and they hate each other as much as anything else. They ONLY cooperate with each other when it is mutually beneficial and each warlord (commander) was paid separately by the CIA. I personally know how this works as I was a Regimental Commander for 9 months over there. You do not turn your back on the Afghans and you do not share classified information. If you did, all of a sudden you found IED’s on the exact routes you were planning. I watched many times the payoffs to Afghan Commanders and their so called agents from our own CIA and when I confronted CIA operatives

        SF teams operated independently. They were not under Afghan control, however, they had to satellite call to command center….which was NOT located in Afghanistan but in the bowels of the war room in Washington.

        The team that penetrated the cave system was actually a recon team that was observing the escape routes to Pakistan. The three teams that actually had eyes on Bin Laden and his staff had to call via sat-tel to the war room and were denied. Even during the escape, we had bombers on standby and were denied.

        The WHY….political is all I would say. I do not know the WHY.

        As a side note………the military and the CIA do not get along….did not then and do not now.

        • Incomplete sentence up there….should read…..”when I confronted CIA operatives, I would get no answers and they would literally laugh and say take it higher up.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          CIA and Military do not get along…………. so much for Rumsfeld’s theory of a lighter more effective integrated fighting force.

          Which is where I think the issue of Tora Bora lies, by the way, Somewhere in the SecDef’s Office.

          • The issue is power and their own little kingdoms… is pathetic.

            What we have done in Texas is that the Department of Public Safety, The Texas Rangers, and the Texas National Guard all share the same frequencies and all are tied into the same briefings. Everyone knows what the other is doing so that there is no duplication of efforts. Many times a National Guard unit on patrol on the border has responded to the calls of a DPS officer in trouble or a Ranger in trouble.

            Every single City in Texas over 25,000 people has a chief of police that is tied into the system as well…it just makes sense.

  5. Plainly, Re: Missouri law.

    When State legislatures begin to do things like this, there are much bigger problems than we may see. As I see it, and quite a few others as well, is that Legislatures will pass these laws at the State level, to hell with the Federal Courts. The Federal Courts are no less corrupt than the Federal Govt, and many people are waking up to this. Now here is where things will get interesting. The State tells the feds and their Judges to sit a spin and back it up with Militia (remember them 😉 ) , Then what? Will the Feds go in violently to protect there power? Will any actions, violent ones, also be considered UnConstitutional? How will the people react to a violent Federal attack?

    Lines are starting to be drawn. Far too many people don’t trust the Feds anymore and something needs done. Look up “American Spring”, that’s the peaceful ideas that won’t work, which can only lead to one thing 😦

    • plainlyspoken says:

      What militia G? Militias that don’t exist cannot be brought together and trained in time to stop federal troops from being sent in to insure compliance (remember George Wallace’s “Stand in the schoolhouse door” in the early 60’s?). That is too if any governor of a state would even use them to stop the feds.

      Further, lets play hypothetical. Say a state did bring forth it’s established militia. Were I in power and enforcing the law the units I would send to handle that enforcement would be the very National Guards units from that state that had been federalized. Do you think there would be a militia that would want to fight against their own?

      Plus any militia not raised and maintained by the state is nothing more than a criminal organization. The feds would be all over them long before they rose to the level of being useful to stand against trained (and now, thanks to our wars) combat experienced troops

      So, other than outright violent revolution, how do you solve the issue?

      • Don’t know what you guys are talking about specifically but..

        ‘how do you solve the issue?’ ELECTIONS!!!

        But you guys won’t buy that. But hmmmm…looks like Texas has success that way. Vote the right people in who will stand up and so no to the Feds and things have a way of working out.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I understand what you are saying and what you believe. I however disagree that national elections will solve that in any timely manner. Look at the swings in national politics that have been ongoing since the end of WW2.

          As to Texas, to some degree, but then I await the final outcome – Texas just hasn’t pissed off the feds enough yet.

          I give Texas points for trying and hope they succeed in permanently reclaiming authority & rights that – I believe – belongs to the states, not the feds. Yet, Texas is in the opening chapters of this – historic – battle against the federal government.

        • Anita, I think all of us you are looking at have made it quite clear that we oppose the Federal elections. We have all stated that we must work at the State levels and below. You are getting forgetful, feeling OK?

          • but nixed state level too..said you’d only vote local.

            • Semantics 🙂 My recent article was about being active locally, which can transcend to the State level. I do still have an issue with the two parties (gangs), but that’s another issue all together. I may not vote at the State level because of the 2 party issue, but the others have not said that, that I remember (cut some slack on the memory eh, I’m no Spring Chicken ya know 🙂 )

      • There are plenty of militias out there that are flying under the radar, but I’m only looking at what may happen, rather than will happen.

        Do you think there would be a militia that would want to fight against their own? The same question could be asked of the National Guard (especially after Kent St) and the US military. Violence begets violence, but it would be an interesting standoff. But in my opinion, the Feds have no authority to use force, it’s not an armed rebellion or insurrection. It is a State say NO, assertively. It is also the Constitutional responsibility to protect the States and their rights. That would be one situation I would join the state’s militia, even at my age I can still shoot a fly in the eye at 100 paces 😉

        • Also, the 10th Amendment is very clear in it’s language that outlines the Feds authority to what is Specifically (actual words, not BS assumptions) outlined in the powers of the Government.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”1 “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”2 That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word “expressly” before the word “delegated,”3 and was confirmed by Madison’s remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amendment was pending concerning Hamilton’s plan to establish a national bank. “Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not[p.1510]given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.”4 Nevertheless, for approximately a century, from the death of Marshall until 1937, the Tenth Amendment was frequently invoked to curtail powers expressly granted to Congress, notably the powers to regulate commerce, to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.


            • I think we can agree that Lawyers have totally fu#$ed up the intent of the Constitution over the last 200 years. The Federal govt have been acting in violation of the document and their powers since lawyers have been dishonest.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Are they state sanctioned & supported militias or private militias G?

          • Some states have both, because the feds can call up the NG. I will have to look for a list.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Do the states with both allow both to exist – or would they since those private militias could be used against the state just as easily as they could the federal government.

              So should states allow private militias to exist or treat them as criminal organizations and go after them?

              • If the militias aren’t violating any laws or harming anyone, why should they not be allowed? Michigan has a well known one as does Arizona. They are not illegal that I know of. The Feds don’t like them and have tried often to make stuff up, but the last one I remember between the Feds and a militia, then militia won in court.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Plus, do you dare call a Constitutional Convention to fix the problems of government? Remember that the last time a convention was called to fix the Articles of Confederation, the members of the convention ended up dumping the convention and writing/implementing the US Constitution. Do you want to take the chance any convention called would come back with some even worse than we have now?

    • You guys are forgetting that two states have legalized pot in violation of Federal Law. This is a precedent. In addition we have the sanctuary city problem where municipalities are in effect shielding illegal aliens, even criminal illegal aliens.

      While I am sure that the states/cities can defend the latter by saying they have no obligation to do the work for the feds, there is that pesky Supremacy Law thingee.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I bet the feds don’t see that legalization as any real threat to their power & authority either. Remember, you dilute your resources if you fight over every battle, so choose your battles wisely.

        • This does show that they may not be all powerful, at least by their actions.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Not really. Just shows they don’t care about it at this time. The feds went through a bunch of raids of medical marijuana shops in – I think it was – Denver this past year. While those shops were legal by state law, the feds used the supremacy of federal law to act in raiding them.

            So when it suits their purpose, whatever that may be, they exercise their power.

            • IMHO the States should have protected the shops.

            • So, how does selective enforcement of only certain laws play out in the courts? can the failure to enforce one set be used against the federal government?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Selective enforcement has been a standard in this country for longer than I can think of at this moment. And, done so by ALL levels of government in the country.

                I think what the courts would say is that it doesn’t matter it the law was enforced against another – the case being adjudicated stands on it’s own merit.

  6. Interesting…….the Russians cannot sell out the Olympics. Thousands of tickets remain unsold, flights being cancelled, hotels not filled…………

    Now, the IOC and the Russians are saying that the threats are……………..a hoax. That there is no such thing as Black Widow terrorists cells and that there is no threat from Sochi radical Muslims despite two hundred years of fighting………….everything is ok……come on down.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Guess they aren’t worried there could be a ’72 Munich Olympics event again.

    • While the threat of terrorism is very real, the hostility expressed by various groups against the Russkies makes the “false flag” theory valid. Can you say, homosexual lobby? Or perhaps Syrian interventionist lobby? Or maybe you can say neocon?

      In any event all three of the above have incredible power in the media, both leftist and conservative. As usual, Russia will not get a fair shake from the west. Our governments offer to lend then the services of two destroyers in the Black Sea makes me wonder if the bif O is looking fro payback since Putin put him in his place. Two destroyers? Last I looked Al Queda did not have submarines.

      • You do not understand….Al Queda submarines are 14 year old boys on a Jihad wish with scuba gear. The destroyers will house SF units and Seals.

        • I understand the big O would just love to get troops into Russia partially for payback to Putin for making him look like the incompetent schoolboy he is. On the other hand, just what intel we have that we could use on the ground in Russia boggles my imagination. If we know something of value, we should share it now. Sending in Special ops is gonna be an after the fact deal and I’m sure the Russians can deal with that on their own.

  7. plainlyspoken says:

    An independent board tasked with reviewing National Security Agency surveillance called Thursday for the government to end its mass data collection program and “purge” its files, declaring the program illegal in a major challenge to President Obama.

    Lets see how much attention Obama pays to his own oversight board.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    G – down here.

    If the militias aren’t violating any laws or harming anyone, why should they not be allowed? Michigan has a well known one as does Arizona. They are not illegal that I know of. The Feds don’t like them and have tried often to make stuff up, but the last one I remember between the Feds and a militia, then militia won in court.

    *snap* You hit the trap. What is your thinking if those private militias were raised and maintained were Islamic militia’s, or black supremacist militia’s, or socialist/communist oriented militia’s, etc., and weren’t violating any laws or harming anyone?

    • I will stick with the term militia as a trained, armed group whose sole purpose is defensive. Based on your reply any armed gang can then be designated a militia, which they are not in the textual definitions of the Founders. Sucky trap and easily escaped. Hence, armed gangs hellbent on evil are not militia’s in the acceptable definition of militia. 🙂

      • Claiming terrorists as militias is a Left wing trick, not based on reality though, as is most of their points.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Keep squirming – I said nothing about terrorists. You are deliberately twisting the question is directions you want in order to give you an out to the question. Sounds like what lawyers do. 😉

      • plainlyspoken says:

        lol…you ‘escaped’ by making the presumption the militia’s I offered are for something other than defensive purposes only. So, lets add that to the question (and put you back in the trap). Now what do you say?

        Also, I doubt every private militia in the country has come together for defensive purposes only. I worked against some of those in my career days – they could spout all they wanted, but the ones I knew of were supremacists and wanted the country turned into their version of America.

        Armed gangs don’t rise to militias under this discussion since they are operating in manners that are harmful to society.

        • Start here:

          mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA


          1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

          2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

          3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

          4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


          1580–90; < Latin mīlitia soldiery, equivalent to mīlit- (stem of mīles ) soldier + -ia -ia

            • Amateur trap maker, eh? 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I also refer you to this clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

              To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

              • This is what the Congress can do, it doesn’t say the States CAN’t have one for State purposes.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                It covers militia’s in general in my thinking. Thereby giving the feds authority over militia’s – even state militia’s.

                But, I’m no constitution law specialist so who knows.

              • I believe that the States that have begun to organize are doing it under the pretense of emergencies such as natural disasters. Their resources have been depleted by the Fed call ups of NG and their equipment. The States feel they do not have the resources to deal with major issues because of this and want a resource (militia) that CAN’T be called to action by the Feds.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

            This definition could easily be applied to whites, blacks, Muslims, Chinese, Jews, Socialists/Communists, etc.

            Doesn’t change my question in the least. Take your time, I have all day to await your answer to the – modified – question.

            • This definition could easily be applied to whites, blacks, Muslims, Chinese, Jews, (Socialists/Communists,) etc. Yes, American Patriots come in all forms and colors, we are a melting pot after all, but I think socialists and communists don’t qualify per the definition, they would be considered insurgents in our society, if they were paramilitary, which today’s self claimed socialist/communists can’t spell gun much less shoot one without blasting off a tow or tw 🙂

        • As too your question, I only submit to the definition given. I also submit that militia’s as they were so named in the 1700’s were for the purposes of local defenses and did not submit to any stated goals such as the Aryan Nation would do. Those like the White supremist’s and such don’t deserve the right to be called militia, they are nothing but thugs.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I agree, groups like that are not militias – just criminal organizations. However, under the doctrine of raised for self defense would Muslim groups, or Christian based groups be any different if their purpose and behavior conformed to being organized for local defense?

            Would – especially in the current climate of the fear & hate many have about Muslims – Muslim militias be acceptable?

            • Would – especially in the current climate of the fear & hate many have about Muslims – Muslim militias be acceptable?

              Not sure how the feds would react to that. I would think that a Muslim paramilitary organization would be violating law today. If their stated goal was for defense only and didn’t submit to the radical side, then why not. I do not feel that American Muslims are all evil. That would be like saying that all white people are racists, oh wait, shit……. BWAHAHA

              • plainlyspoken says:

                The feds should react to them no different than they would to any other militia not raised & supported by a state and under the control of that state government.

                I don’t – at this time – know any private militias that should be ignored, since they are uncontrollable by state governments.

              • I’m part of the world’s largest militia reserve on the planet. While not actively training, we are the next level.

                I don’t consider groups made up of one religion or one race (disallowing any membership) as militia’s, they are extremist groups and armed gangs, no different than the Bloods and Crips, just with different training. Those militias with the stated purpose of defending against an oppressive govt do not have the resources for offensive actions nor do they even want such resources. They are stay at home local defenses. Some of the groups you have mentioned are criminal in nature. They are not militia’s in my eyes, they are criminal gangs with guns.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                and that reserve G is under the direct authority of the USG (I assume by the way you are speaking of the inactive reserve – which I too am a part of for life). ANY private militia not under the direct control of a state or federal government are nothing more that criminal organizations IMO. They have no legal standing under the law and are of no important or direct benefit to society.

              • I’m talking about deer hunters 🙂 😉

              • ). ANY private militia not under the direct control of a state or federal government are nothing more that criminal organizations IMO. Your allowed to feel the way you do. As long as these militia’s are peaceful and pose no threat to a free society, they’re fine in my book.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So you advocate that no laws should regulate society?

              • I said no such thing.

  9. Just A Citizen says:


    On your fear of a “runaway convention”, based on precedent of 1787.

    Summary: It was NOT a runaway convention but was in fact authorized by the States that the convention explore replacing the Articles of Confed. with a New Govt.

    From Rob Natelson:

    There are some claims that you hear over and over on this subject to
    which I want to respond. It is sometimes said, notably for example, by Professor [Charles L. Black], that for the first one-hundred years of our
    history there was no, or only one, state application for a limited
    convention—and that, therefore, everybody understood that a convention
    for proposing amendments had to be wide open.

    There are two problems with that claim: first, what a state might have
    done in 1850 or 1830 is really not very good evidence of what the Founders
    intended. Second, the claim is flatly untrue. There were, in fact, a number
    of specific single-subject applications by states in the first hundred years.36
    You can make an argument—I don’t know if it’s a winning argument, but
    you can make an argument—that Virginia’s 1789 application was for a
    limited convention. South Carolina’s 1832 application certainly was.
    Alabama’s 1833 application was designed to deal specifically with the
    issue of federal taxing power. And Oregon’s application of 1864 was
    designed to deal specifically with the issue of slavery. So if you hear that
    statement, that during the first hundred years all applications were general,
    be aware that it is not accurate.

    Another, even more common claim, runs like this: You know, we had
    experience with a constitutional convention once before (notice the word
    constitutional there)—we had experience with a constitutional convention
    once before, in 1787, and it was a runaway. Those guys were brought to
    Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation, and they ignored the
    limits and gave us a whole new form of government, didn’t they?”
    Well, of course they really didn’t give us the new form of government;
    the states had to ratify it. However, the problem with the claim goes beyond
    that. The congressional call for the 1787 Convention did ask for
    amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but under the law of the time,
    particularly the law of agency, the scope of the 1787 Convention was not
    set by Congress. It was set by the formal commissions issued to the
    delegates from the various state legislatures.

    When you interpret those commissions in light of eighteenth-century
    legal and linguistic rules, you find that the commissions from ten of the
    twelve states that sent delegates authorized those delegates to propose an
    entirely new constitution. In other words, as to the overwhelming majority
    of the delegates, the 1787 Convention was not a runaway. It was designed
    to be a plenipotentiary convention, unlike the sort of convention we are
    discussing today.

    Furthermore: Per Natelson’s explanation we know that any Federal Convention called by the States would be subject to the limitations placed on it by the States. Should the convention get out of hand the States can recall the delegates or remove them altogether.

    The States also have the last say as to whether anything proposed by the Convention is actually RATIFIED.


    Note: Not yelling. I use Caps to emphasize because it is faster than all that block italics and bold stuff. 🙂

    • plainlyspoken says:

      JAC, I agree….the State’s through ratification have full powers to bring any convention changes into force, or send them to the dustbin. Yet, while some states sent delegates with the authority to make a new constitution (guiding document by whatever name), other states sent their delegates with specific restrictions in mind. Now, if those states exercised their ability to recall delegates – tell me what becomes of this convention? Is there a threshold of how many states would need delegates participating for the convention to continue?

      And, would any non-participating states who may have not gone – or recalled – their delegates subject to any changes to or new constitutions that may be passed by a majority of the states? Or would those non-participating states be within their rights to tell the others to go away?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        As I understand it, Congress could set some rules on the number of States that must be represented, or the States themselves could set such rules.

        Usually the first order of business at a convention is election of officers and selection of rules governing the convention.

        We are not as educated and practiced as Citizens in these procedures as our Founders were. But there is plenty of precedent and most “legislators” operate under such rules.

        The delegates of any convention are going to be from or selected by Legislators who understand these procedures.

        The Const. convention of 1787 often had less than a quorum while debating certain topics. People came and went due to family and other business demands.

        But nothing was approved until they had at least 51% of the delegations present. There was a couple of times that a vote was delayed while a delegate sent for “instructions” on how to vote from his home Legislature. The Convention honored the request for delay.

        The founders, even those who had opposing views, would NEVER have tried to pull a stunt like Reid and Pelosi did to get the ACA (Obama Care) passed. There would have been DUELS to the death if such a thing had been attempted.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Also JAC, I am not opposed to any convention called – whether to deal with specific issues or to have the authority to write a new constitution. The reason I am not is the required ratification process by the states (meaning us lowly voters).

      Further if such a convention were called I would hope for the inclusion of a national referendum system where major changes to laws or new laws could be put to the voters instead of just a Congress (yes, that would leave open a discussion of what stuff would fall under the referendum system), giving a clear voice to the electorate. Maybe any referendum system would have annual voting on all items passed by Congress that fell in the referendum requirements. The items awaiting the annual referendum would be on hold until the results of the referendum were tallied.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am opposed to a Democracy per se’ so I would oppose a “national referendum”.

        I could see a new system to make it easier for States to propose “referendums” for Congressional Approval.

        This would give DIRECT instruction to Congress which would be harder for Congress to simply ignore.

        Call it an annual Convention to Propose Legislation.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          That would work provided the proposed legislation to be given to Congress came from the people, not just the elected state legislature. I feel that somewhere in there it must be the people who have some direct say in the legislation being run through Congress.

          If people were more directly involved in the provisions being passed by states and the feds there would be less argument all around. And while voting for representatives is how Anita would say change must occur, we both know damn well that even those elected people will not side with us constantly in their views of what is enacted. So while you can count on them today, tomorrow is a different story.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Our representative can not more represent “we” or “us” than you our I can.

            So the notion that direct participation will “reduce” friction is misplaced, in my humble opinion.

            That would only work in areas where the “vast” majority of “us” held the same view.

            Does not happen very often and even then it is fleeting.

            I would rather explore INCREASING the number of “Representatives” to return the ratio to something like 20,000:1 or even 30,000:1

            Our increased size also demands more “decentralization” of power and authority.

            The Fed, State, County, City model may not have enough layers to adequately distribute the power in a way needed to get it closer to those affected and thus those who should be participating.

            I can see “democracy” becoming more appropriate as the size of the population affected decreases.

            If you want to see the negative affect of “popular referendum” you only have to look to California.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I am aware for sure of California and Colorado as well. I participated in those voting on these kind of things in both states (recently in my vote against recreational pot the last time it came up here as a ballot initiative. lol. Generally I was on the “losing” side in both states.

              I don’t necessarily disagree with your thinking. I’d just need to see and explore these new layers of government first. Maybe it is time for greater decentralization, just how we could accomplish that would be my question.

  10. Just A Citizen says:


    Under the Constitution and the various State Constitutions the MILITIA is the citizenry of a certain age which are subject to Control by the Federal and State Govts’.

    The State retains the authority to assign “officers” and conduct “training” but such training is to be developed and approved by Congress.

    So any “citizen militia” that is operating without State authorization and whose leaders/officers are NOT appointed by the State Legislature or Governor are NOT MILITIA per the laws (common or govt) of the United States.

    If such volunteer groups wish to act locally in protection of their fellow citizens they could ask the Sheriff to designate them as special “deputies”. The local Govt could support such groups in my opinion but not under the guise of “military” action against aggression from “outside” threats. Only in a law enforcement or peace keeping role.

    The reason that these “controls” were placed over the Militia was due to the ineffectiveness of the Militia in combat. Groups getting together and drilling on their own and commanded by some locally respected person simply were not useful in most cases. Except as fodder.

    Even when the militia units came under State control they were of no great use until they were drilled and integrated with “regular troops”.

    The PURPOSE of the Militia was to defend the citizens of the State/territory against attack from “Indians”, Brits/French/Spanish, Other States. This was all “military action” in its nature. There was no “accepted” nor “expected” use of the MILITIA to stand against the State Govt, and not against the Fed Govt once the Constitution was ratified.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I am in no disagreement with you here. But, I bet G is. 😉

      • Not necessarily. Things have changed significantly since the constitution and over time. Today, our militia’s, as per the definition above, are good law abiding citizens concerned with the ever growing Federal Government. No argument from me on that. The States have the National Guard ( with a few wanting a militia under only State control for reasons given) and the Federal Government have numerous agencies that train in paramilitary tactics. Today’s militia’s have no chance at defeating the regular army or a large contingent of National Guard. Someday, their relevance will be tested and we shall see how things go, if I live to see that day 🙂

        • plainlyspoken says:

          They are, if an armed force that trains to use that force against government at any level, not law-abiding citizens and are a part of a criminal organization that I consider to be a danger to society.

          • Your really perverting the definition my friend. They train to defend themselves against ILLEGAL government action and oppression. No more a danger to society than my few million fellow deer hunters 😉

            • plainlyspoken says:

              If they are not legally constituted as a militia my friend they are illegal. Besides who judges whether the action by the government is legal or oppressive requiring armed action against the government?

              No my friend, I feel it is you who are perverting the definition. Any action they decide is illegal or oppressive, and use armed action to oppose said illegality/oppression is an act of insurrection and/or sedition.

              • They exist, openly and don’t seem to be getting arrested, so I think your illegal claim is a bit off. But it’s all a matter of opinion I reckon, they don’t bother me and I don’t bother them. If a bunch of people run around in the woods and play war on their own property, it’s nobodies business anyway. As soon as they attempt to do harm or break existing laws, they are free. We don’t live in the USSA just yet, but it seems more and more people want us to go there.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                lol….apparently you have forgotten or are unaware of what “FBI” stands for – “Forever Being Investigated”.

                Now, are they not breaking the law on militia’s just by existing as one?

                You know better than that where I am concerned. What I am doing is debating with you on the subject. It is the same as our debate on CCP, I don’t like the law but I don’t violate it either. If I carry concealed – peacefully or otherwise – off my property and outside the provisions of law on concealed weapons, then I have crossed over to illegal.

                Same goes for organized private militia’s.

              • I’m guessing, because they exist openly, that they aren’t illegal.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                G, give me the names of some of these organized private militia’s you speak of.

          • What do you call government forces who train to kill their own citizens, Angels?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              If you mean the US military – they are not trained to kill their own citizens. Their training, which includes killing, is to be used against anyone the USG directs them to operate against (which could include US citizens).

              If there is some other government force you are referring to – then which force(s) is that?

              • DHS, FBI, CIA, SWAT (on many occasions lately that was not lawful, while they hide behind their government badges, way too many mistakes, or were they really mistakes?). I can write an entire article on this subject. Who is the DHS gonna shoot with all those wadcutters they bought? You’ve missed a lot of happenings during your vacation from all things politics 😉

              • So you agree with the USG using our military to invade and kill about 1 million or so Iraqi’s over a LIE about WMD’s? Even though the country posed zero threat to our country?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gman, I have no idea what they’ll do with all those rounds. Maybe learn to hit the broadside of a barn?

                Lawful in our personal opinions – but what about the courts? The accountability of these agencies actions can be a problem for sure, however we have to find ways to remove these agencies from service – short of violently – which means serious reforming the government and the laws of the government.

                That’s what it will always come back to.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So you agree with the USG using our military to invade and kill about 1 million or so Iraqi’s over a LIE about WMD’s? Even though the country posed zero threat to our country?

                Nope. Nor do I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, or Panama, or Iraq Round 1, or any other nation not DIRECTLY attacking the USA on our soil. If you remember I said long ago that both Bush and Obama should stand trial for war crimes (and at this point I don’t care who tries them – a US court, the World Court, or some international tribunal).

              • however we have to find ways to remove these agencies from service – short of violently – which means serious reforming the government and the laws of the government.

                Agreed. As long as this corrupt bunch of criminals holds power, I would prefer to have some sort of defense against their illegal actions, weather it’s local militia’s, State laws that keep the Feds from acting etc. If they can be reformed, then much of these issues wouldn’t be issues, hence, the ROOT of the problem.

              • remember I said long ago that both Bush and Obama should stand trial for war crimes

                And as criminals, it’s not far fetched to think they would commit similar acts against their own IF they felt the need.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          They are NOT Militia.

          They are just a bunch of people hanging out and in some cases deluding themselves about what they are going to do about the big bad Govt.

          The Militia is The People.

          It is not some group who “self identifies” as Militia. Not without some authority granted by those they claim to be protecting.

          • We are discussing this based on the definition I provided (most of which are similar). But your are correct, the people make up the true militia 🙂

  11. plainlyspoken says:

    Lets get this easier to reply to. lol

    however we have to find ways to remove these agencies from service – short of violently – which means serious reforming the government and the laws of the government.

    Agreed. As long as this corrupt bunch of criminals holds power, I would prefer to have some sort of defense against their illegal actions, weather it’s local militia’s, State laws that keep the Feds from acting etc. If they can be reformed, then much of these issues wouldn’t be issues, hence, the ROOT of the problem.

    1. You do, it’s called the 2nd Amendment. 2. As long as the militia is under a government (local/state, even federal – though federal would be self-defeating lol) control & authority. 3. States not enforcing/nullifying federal authority – legally – is fine. States standing up against federal authority may well being taking root and will grow in coming years, only time will tell.

    I have no problem with those.

    • After a quick search of a Militia I saw several articles about. I haven’t read the website, but based on the articles they likely fir the definition.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        After looking for several minutes I see nothing showing their control by any governmental authority – hence I would, at this point, consider them to be an unlawful militia.

        • You are entitled to your opinion. I haven’t read it yet. Apparently, they are not considered unlawful.

          • I’ve had my fill of military life, want no part of it. I’m not sure if there is one locally, although I have heard of a small one. I have no desire to join one, that I can say. At my age I give orders, not take them, LOL!

        • Why do you think they are illegal, just curious?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            They are not under the control and authority of a governmental entity (local/state/federal). They are totally independent and “control” themselves as an armed force. And just to note, their founding commander was voted out of command after saying that the OKC bombing was done by the Japanese. lol

            • Where does it say they must be under control?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Look in Article 1, Section 8 for starters, then look into the sections in Title 10 and 32 of US Code to further see the definitions of militia.

              • The Constitution is to establish government and define the governments limitations, not the peoples my friend. Nothing in the Constitution applies to the people.

              • How do definitions of militia’s make them illegal ? Is there an actual law that states they are illegal?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Here’s a list of state laws I found (and no, I haven’t read any of them as of this time)
                The state laws and the legal citations for them are as follows:

                Alabama. Anti-militia. Ala. Code § 31-2-125
                Arizona. Anti-militia. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 26-123.
                Arkansas. Anti-paramilitary training. Ark. Code § 5-71-301 to -303.
                California. Anti-paramilitary training. Cal. Penal Code § 11460.
                Colorado. Anti-paramilitary training. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-120.
                Connecticut. Anti-paramilitary training. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-206b.
                Florida. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 870.06, 790.29.
                Georgia. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.
                Idaho. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Idaho Code §§ 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.
                Iowa. Anti-militia. Iowa Code § 29A.31
                Illinois. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 1805, para 94-95.
                Kansas. Anti-militia. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 48-203.
                Kentucky. Anti-militia. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38.440.
                Louisiana. Anti-paramilitary training. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 117.1.
                Maine. Anti-militia. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. ***. 37-B, § 342.2.
                Maryland. Anti-militia. Md. Code Ann. art. 65, § 35.
                Massachusetts. Anti-militia. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 33 § 129-132.
                Michigan. Anti-paramilitary training. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.528a.
                Minnesota. Anti-militia. Minn. Stat. § 624.61.
                Mississippi. Anti-militia. Miss. Code Ann. § 33-1-31.
                Missouri. Anti-paramilitary training. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.070.
                Nebraska. Anti-paramilitary training. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1480 to -1482.
                Nevada. Anti-militia. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 203.080.
                New Hampshire. Anti-militia. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 111:15.
                New Jersey. Anti-paramilitary training. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:39-14.
                New Mexico. Anti-paramilitary training. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-20A-1 to -4.
                New York. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. N.Y. Mil. Law § 240.
                North Carolina. Anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 127A-151, 14-288.20.
                North Dakota. Anti-militia. N.D. Cent. Code § 37-01-21.
                Oklahoma. Anti-paramilitary training. Okla. Stat. Ann. ***. 21, § 1321.10.
                Oregon. Anti-paramilitary training. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.660.
                Pennsylvania. Anti-paramilitary training. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5515.
                Rhode Island. anti-militia and anti-paramilitary training. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.
                South Carolina. Anti-paramilitary training. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-8-10 to -30.
                Tennessee. Anti-paramilitary training. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-314.
                Texas. Anti-militia. Tex. Govt. Code; Ann. § 431.010.
                Virginia. Anti-paramilitary training. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-433.1 to -433.3.
                Washington. Anti-militia. Wash. Rev. Code § 38.40.120.
                West Virginia. Anti-militia. W.Va. Code § 15-1F-7.
                Wyoming. Anti-militia. Wyo. Stat. § 19-1-106.

                Working on the different federal laws to see what they all say.

              • The Feds have an issue with para military training if it’s purpose is to commit civil disobedience. This falls in line with some state laws as well. It appears to be a State issue, as it should be. While I haven’t read the laws either, In order for these laws to be Constitutional, some form of illegal intent must be present to make militia’s illegal. Without the illegal intent it would violate the right to assemble. I hope I’m making some sense here, LOL, but if the militia has NO illegal intent, then it isn’t illegal, based on what I have read.

                A militia that has the intent to defend against alien invasion, for example, would not be illegal under the laws that I have read. There intent would have to violate a law, or be proven to intend on violating a law to fall into the illegal category.

                Plainly, me thinks we are both correct in many ways. 🙂

      • As far as our own being given the order to shoot us, it’s already happened. From an E-mail:

        “They have M16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will.”

        That sounds more like something you would hear on the front-lines of Afghanistan or Iraq… not in your own backyard.

        Unfortunately though, that’s exactly what happened…

        You see… those words weren’t spoken by a general, captain, or any other solider…

        No, these were the words uttered by a politician, on American soil… against American citizens…

        Louisiana’s then governor Kathleen Blanco spoke them in response to the sickening bloodshed that filled the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

        Troops were ordered to fire on civilians to keep people “under control.”

        This included anyone and everyone who refused to be shipped off to the FEMA camps…

        I don’t trust politicians, period.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          “These troops are fresh back from Iraq. They are well-trained, experienced, battle-tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets. These are some of the 40,000 extra troops that I have demanded. They have M-16’s, and they’re locked and loaded. When hoodlums victimize and inflict suffering on people at their wit’s end, they’re taking away our limited resources, or whatever resources we have, to save babies, or save children and to save good people. I have one message for these hoodlums. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.

          Don’t take it out of context G.

          • I’m not, they had the right and the OK to shoot to kill if deemed necessary. They were also told to take all guns, that is well documented. Most refused, but I’m sure that in self defense they would have been justified. That wasn’t my point though. My point is that politicians don’t have any skin in the game, therefore are more easily willing to send our own off to war, which ain’t much different than giving an order to shoot to kill if people refuse to do what their told. Couple that with the insane actions of Law enforcement in catching that Boston Bomber teenage kid, I will not put anything past this group of criminals in the District of Criminals. You may do so, at your own peril of course. I’ll just happily not trust them any further than I could throw them.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G, you’re killing me here. Civilian authority was codified in the Constitution (President as Commander-in-Chief). Blanco’s ‘order’ pertained to 300 Louisana National Guardsman sent to patrol in Katrina struck New Orleans _ which is a duty of the National Guard when called upon by the State Governor

              You know that as well as I do. And would you expect them to accomplish their duties without taking action against violent lawlessness – or stand there with their thumbs up their butts and just watch?

              Geezsus, I’d expect you to give the same kind of order to protect – with force if appropriate – in the same circumstances. If you’d refuse to then I ask just where you stand on law and order?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                It also makes me wonder if you’d prefer that private militia to do the work instead – under their own authority?

              • I am forever haunted by a video of an old lay being brutalized by the armed authorities, in her home, and forced to give up her gun (all of which is illegal, I might add). There was no real ID on their uniforms, but it has always bothered me. And for the record, those militia folks probably could have done just as good a job, had they had the equipment, which they don’t. That type of duty is not within their capabilities for the most part. At least they wouldn’t have left innocent people with no way to defend themselves, when it’s clear they were no threat, unlike the authorities did. I still don’t trust politicians, I can think of millions of dead people as damn good reason 🙂

                As far as order to “protect” yes, but shoot to kill still should have to be looked at closer.
                p.s. I’m also painting a big room in between replies, which isn’t doing much for the thought process, LOL

              • plainlyspoken says:

                G, your were CATM. Where did you train us to shoot? What is the likely outcome of that training when we fire?

                Plus, the words she used publicly were directed at those “hoodlums” and it seems to me I’d want to scare the hell out of them if I could with the harshest wording I could think of that would apply.

                As to the old lady being brutalized and her guns taken. Direct me to more information and let me become knowledgeable in order to formulate my thinking & response. On its face – from what you’ve said – hell yes it was wrong.

                That private militia would have done as they saw fit – IMO, even taking firearms away from those they chose not to trust.

                I have some painting that needs doing – interested? 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Another thing, this didn’t come from anyone in the District of Criminals – it cam from the lawful civil authority over these Guardsman.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                You said: “There was no real ID on their uniforms, but it has always bothered me.”

                Yet they clearly looked like cops to me, one had “Police” on the white shirt he was wearing and several badges were visible on others, I saw one patch on a shoulder on a blue shirted cop, plus the white shirt has an outline of Louisiana with the letters “LSP” under it – Louisiana State Police. Clearly cops all. Further, she said they were “law enforcement officers” in the Free Republic link..

                So, since we were discussing military forces, National Guard specifically in the part dealing with being told to confiscate guns, this doesn’t apply to the discussion.

                The cops actions are open to lawsuits in the courts, which happened.

                Show me the general order to confiscate all weapons please. Or something I can read pertaining to said order.

              • I have to do more research, but I know of one Guard unit given the order to disarmed, they refused (to the best of my recollection) It’s been awhile since this was a subject of discussion. Who gave the Order, Still looking, but here’s and article with a video stating such:

  12. Here is the skinny on the Dick or Militia act of 1903. So, surprise to me, the militia is divided into two parts. The National Guard or organized militia and the unorganized militia (everyone else).

  13. An obviously biased site but the words of the founders are clear. If anyone would deny this then I think they really have an obligation to come up with counter quotes either from the same people or their contemporaries.

    The enemy is he who would change the meaning of the words using the argument that they are “dated” or “irrelevant” to modern society. Rather than go through the process to change the actual laws pertaining to arms, they would have the “courts” find new meanings that don’t exist.

    Over the weekend watched another C-Span debate (love those people) where I was reminded that the founders thought Congress most important, the Executive next and the Courts last. Things have not quite worked out that way have they?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And this pertains how to the discussion G & I are having of militia’s? I don’t argue that the founders thought militia’s a bad idea/concept. Heck, they codified it in Art 1, Section 8. My argument is that the feds give state’s the right of appointment of officer and training of the militia. It seems clear to me that a lawful militia is controlled by the State government, ergo no control – not a lawful militia (simplified).

      • If you are part of the “unorganized” militia, I don’t see anything in the Federal Act that precludes you from associating with other members of the unorganized militia. Even if you all go out camping and shooting together and create a “club” electing a President, VP, Secretary, Sgt. at arms etc. I cannot see how you are in violation of the law. The right of “free association” would seem to trump any attempted ban.

        Most members of the gun cub I belong to (established in the 1920’s) , that I have spoken to agree with most of my political philosophy. Since we have banded together in a voluntary association, obey rules, elect leaders could we not be defined in some ways as a “militia”?

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    One of the Oregon statutes regarding formation and control of the MILITA.

    As plainly noted earlier, Oregon recognizes an “organized” and an “unorganized” militia. Organized includes the National Guard and Air Guard and Stated Defense Force (??). The “Unorganized Militia” is every able bodied male from Age x to Age z.

    But these statutes clearly designate the Governor as the Commander in Chief of the Militia, as in Both types of Militia.

    You will find the following of interest regarding how the two types are to be used.


    Militia call by United States

    When the militia of the state or any part thereof is called forth under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Governor shall order out for service the organized militia or such part thereof as may be necessary, and if the number available is insufficient the Governor may call for and accept from the unorganized militia as many volunteers as are required for service in the organized militia or the Governor may direct the members of the unorganized militia or such of them as the Governor may deem necessary to be drafted into the organized militia. [1961 c.454 §16]

  15. What say you? Militia or not?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      It is not a militia Stephen, anymore than your gun club is.. It is an association of members of a military WW2 unit.

      Plus, again we are talking about private militia’ – groups that form and arm themselves, train, practice, etc., to defend themselves against government tyranny (for one). Throwing out links to WW2 unit associations, or gun clubs, etc., are strawman arguments you are tossing out to confuse the subject under discussion. Please don’t waste my time asking this kind of question.

      Come to the discussion at hand and talk about it.

    • They train in military tactics and do so with weapons, I would say yes. However, because they are “re-enacting” this doesn’t fall under any anti-militia or anti-paramilitary training laws. It just dawned on me that I read militias can be formed even in States where they are banned, under the umbrella of “re-enacting”.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Cmon G, you’re stretching now aren’t you? You know damn well I am not – nor have I been talking about reenactment units. Tell me what a militia armed with AK-47’s is reenacting? You’re jumping on the “confuse em” bandwagon with Stephen.

        Keep this up and the Boy Scouts will be a militia. 🙄

        • No, No, We weren’t talking about re-enactors. Although it did ring a bell that it could be used as a cover for a militia in a banned Sate. Some time ago I read an article about this being possible, although thinking of a Civil War group didn’t really make me feel to good about the idea, LOL. But, think about it openly, a group in a State where militia’s are banned, could get together to start re-enacting battles from Iraq, to serve as training (tactics) and still get the weapons training for said purpose. This would make their “militia” legal, because it is legally a re-enacting group. Hopefully you see how easily this could be accomplished.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Yes, I can see the possibility of it – but it’s a “what if” road off the road we are traveling in this discussion…………so, not wanting to go there. lol

  16. Before the questions start, what the news media is leaving out of the loosening of religious articles in the military, understand this…….what is left in the regulations is that it is a commander’s call. It is not policy by the Defense Department. I a commander decides to allow it…..ok…if not…..there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Also left in is the fact that if a soldier wears a religious article after being told no by a commander….that is disobeying a lawful direct order.

    And you must understand the term “green tab” to “green tab”. There is a difference in line officers and staff officers. Staff officers, no matter the rank, have no say over line officers….even a lowly second lieutenant. In addition, there is no appeal from a soldier to a higher rank. If a LT in charge of his platoon says no…..there is no appeal…even to the company commander.

    Nothing will change but it makes nice political hay.

  17. Ladies, I am sorry to say, that the elimination of the same requirements as men to become combat soldiers…….will only deepen the resentment and increase the double standard.

    The Marine Corps is finding out the hard way. Men have to do pushups and pull ups to become infantry qualified……women do not. the rift is huge and getting larger and the ladies are not going to be considered an equal. No male on the battlefield is going to trust the fact that if they are wounded, no female is going to be able to pick him and his weapon up and carry them to safety while maintaining her own equipment.

    • Nothing against the Ladies, I think the tests should all be the same for everyone.

    • I’d never make it because I can’t stand running. But I’ll push up and pull up with the best of ’em. The ladies need to get over it..go fly a jet or something 😉

  18. Plainly, Down here. Good chat today. I never expected to talk on the subject, but as always, I learned a few things and remembered a few things. I think militia groups with no ill intent can serve a good purpose in most of our Communities. Teaching young people weapons safety and survival skills as well as much need discipline. Allowing for friendships of like minded people who actually care about their fellow American’s, rather than the fake “caring” we hear politicians babble about. I see many positive things coming from local militia’s, as long as the intent is compliant with laws and no ill actions are planned or intended. The benefits outweigh any concerns in my book 🙂

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Fine, call them military cadet clubs, or military skills clubs, etc., and espouse no political standard/stance, which most militias do G (we both know that). Work with community leaders and provide skills like search & rescue, emergency medical training, disaster preparedness in the community, weapons safety courses, range training even, ect. Don’t just run around in the woods with your little group practicing pure military skills only and publicly proclaiming your political stands against tyranny or such blather – that makes you a militia that may well be targeted for running afoul of the laws of your state.

      I’m pretty sure too G, since you ain’t no dummy, you dang well knew what I meant by militia from the get go. 🙂

      • Actually, It didn’t dawn on me right away as to your definition of militia. Hence, I provided a definition. But, you folks on the left side of the big river are a strange bunch, so it shouldn’t surprise me, LOL: 😆

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Gotta find a way to throw “left” at me huh? lmao.

          FYI – I just looked up the Colorado State Constitution and found that only militia’s (or state defense forces) raised, trained and maintained by State Authorities are permitted. “The governor shall appoint all general, field and staff officers and commission them. Each company shall elect its own officers, who shall be commissioned by the governor; but if any company shall fail to elect such officers within the time prescribed by law, they may be appointed by the governor.”

          So, private militia’s here won’t fly as legal.

          • Colorado has been making a lot of news the last few years, can’t seem to figure out which side of the isle it wants to be on, LOL. You can still have re-enactors, HAHA 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              The State Constitution has had this in place since 1 Aug 1876, the date Colorado became a state. Nothing “new” about it. lol

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I have been trying for years to tell people the lobbyists are not the driver of political contributions. That it is the power seeking politicians who drive this game.

    I wish I had a dollar for every time I was called a “moron” or the equivalent. Those who’s internal compass depend on believing Corporations are deliberately buying Govt simply cannot fathom I could be correct.

    Well FINALLY, some of the victims are speaking out. And others are starting to write about the TRUTH.

    I must admit there is a certain good feeling that comes with being vindicated.

    • Excellent points. I think that it swings both ways but there is no question that the politicians are driving the train this time.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      But, can they get the truth accepted? Political spin will come into play when the elected can no longer ignore the ‘isolated’ pronouncements of those being forced, extorted or downright blackmailed into contributing to campaigns.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Follow up on my comment about the potential for a major disaster in the West this coming summer and maybe longer. Due to drought.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And you can bet California will ‘demand’ water from other places to aid them in weathering the droughts. California has an overblown self-importance of their standing among the states – IMHO of course. Living there was like living in some fantasy world where the people of the state (meaning those with the political or monetary influence) proclaimed what was right for everyone, and they just didn’t mean Californians.

  21. Gman,

    Re: Tolerance

    With regard to the whole national conversation about free speech, monuments, tolerating others such as Christians/Muslims/Satanists and/or gay people….

    You made the point that “the left lost, period”

    Think of it like a beta test or probe into collective ego.

    If you can get through to tens of millions of people in the interest of tolerating what they despise, then maybe they won’t flip out when discovering the legitimacy of their beliefs are in question.

    Take notice of how many groups there are who are acting defense of their faith, as if there is a threat in sharing, in allowing others their turn at the punch bowl. “This is our home too” is being interpreted as an attack on their culture.

    There are also a lot of people feeding their defensiveness by making excuses and justifying punking Christians.

    This scares me, as it is indicative of an environment of polarity and conflict.

    We gotta get over our hang-ups. If we are going to get anywhere, we are going to have to let go of all those things that are holding us back.

    • I agree BL, the problem we face today is a good portion of society is divided. That’s on purpose and feeds the corrupt political slavery complex. If we weren’t divided politically like we are, this govt would be serving time in jail instead of pretending to serve the people. Tolerance is all BS, because those who claim the high ground, really don’t have it. The vast majority of the people don’t care and are ignorant to what’s going on in the world. Their view comes their favorite news channel, and they rarely look at other outlets. They are effectively brainwashed. Of course, there are different levels of brainwashing, breaking through all of them is the real challenge.

    • That sounds so reasonable-but what happens when you run into issues that you don’t think should be tolerated?

      • We all know the issue you speak of. Ask yourself some questions, is it your business what others do if it doesn’t harm you? Who are you to judge? Are you willing to face violence to fight your position?

        I don’t agree with abortion either, but it’s non of my business what people do if it don’t affect me. If it affects me, then I have a right to fight. Why I don’t make my voice louder on the subject? Let God judge others, it’s not my place.

        • VH, For the record, I admire your unwavering position on abortion. 😉

        • I’m talking in more general terms at this point, not just abortion. So you answer the questions 🙂 -when does it become your business? How do you determine whether or not something harms you-does someone killing your neighbor hurt YOU or just him? At what point does it change from just being tolerant and turn into promoting or allowing evil that harms us all?

          • It becomes my business when it negatively affects me directly. At that point I have the right to act.

            How do you determine whether or not something harms you- The question should begin with- does it affect me and if so how? One’s morals and ethics, along with their core principles and beliefs will guide ones thinking, usually without effort.

            does someone killing your neighbor hurt YOU or just him? Both. I would protect my neighbors as I would myself. For the record, we all have that mutual agreement, just different abilities as to agreed upon actions. The neighbor with 6 kids will not go to another neighbor in the midst of a violent confrontation, for example. We apply common sense, as much as possible anyway. This is also in our mutual interest and benefit. None of us will go hungry, period 🙂

            At what point does it change from just being tolerant and turn into promoting or allowing evil that harms us all? That’s up to the individual first, then like minded people will come together to determine any actions. Just be yourself, those like you will come around . 🙂

            • Okay, the contradictions which are confusing me-“when it negatively affects me directly” highlighting the word Directly -side by side with being guided by my morals and ethics.

    • Another question-How long do you think a society can exist in relative peace and tolerance if the majority of the people do not share the same basic beliefs or accept the same basic social norms?

      • A divided society is doomed. The disagreement between the Left and the Right today will be violent in the future. Neither side can win, the game isn’t designed for a winner. 20 years from now, if we don’t collapse completely, it will still be the Left vs. the Right and DC will be no different.

        • In my lifetime I have seen the stalemate in government coming. One of the driving forces in the freeze if you will com,es exclusively from the left.

          Sorry Buck, Matt, Charlie and anyone else out there, If you actually look at the past 50 years you will see that the left has consistently won on almost every issue except defeating the Soviet Union.

          Go ahead, name the issue from Socialized medicine to Gun control to education to environmental issues where the right has either been able to hold the line or actually win the debate.

          These thoughts came to me after a several day long fruitless series of arguments on Gun Control that I had on Facebook. No matter wheat actual, factual history I laid out, naming names and naming laws I was still ignored and told that I and people like me stood in the way of “common sense” and “reasonable” restrictions.

          As a young man guns were a lot easier to obtain than they are now, yet the carnage continues. Despite fifty years of “reasonable” laws forever incrementally making it more difficult for the ordinary citizen to get guns, crime continues and guns continue to be used. Any scientifically or for that matter reasonable intelligent person would say that that the problem must not be guns but something else.

          Same with poverty or education. We have constantly done what the left has told us to do yet the results are awful leading one to believe that the normal knww-jery excuses are BS.

          The right wing, conservatives, tea partyers, republicans or whatever have given and given again and are frankly quite tired of it. The lefts solutions are abject failures. It is time to shut them down. Not things that exist already by expansions to worthless programs. If this means stalemate, logjam or whatever, so be it. To my knowledge, there is not a single elected republican out there fighting to end foodstamps, medicare, medicaid, background checks, pollution controls,subsidized housing, free school lunch, VA/FHA mortgages, education loans, auto safety improvements or any other offshoot of the great society or the new deal. Fifty years ago, most of these things did not exist. The left pushed them, convinced Republicans that they were good and were limited and then allowed them to grow beyond anything anyone could ever have expected.

          So, I see no compromise of any type on the left why should the right be the one to compromise all the time?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Just as long as it takes for a significant minority to get fed up and revolt. For some that time frame is much shorter than for others.

        Under “social norms” I am including “laws” which govern general behavior.

        A society which accepts the basic law and its enforcement can last much longer even if their other “beliefs or norms” are not shared by a majority. But that means the concept of “tolerance” must be accepted by the majority.

        The short answer is they won’t last. What we call “societies” have to share some common values or principles. And of course “life goals”.

        Of course, some of this answer depends on the nature of the values or norms.

  22. Wonder what the pot smokers are saying now…..with the new EUROPEAN study out….one of the results of the study..2-4 marijuana cigs per day causes more damage and puts more carcinogens in your system than 20-30 cigarettes per day and can actually change DNA in newborns……..interesting.

  23. As only Ted Nugent can do, he speaks again.

    I agree with much of his rhetoric, as most of you would imagine, but I also met the man. He is who he say’s he is, it’s not an act.

  24. Is there any wonder why trusting government is non-existent with some of us?

  25. Just A Citizen says:


    “If you are part of the “unorganized” militia, I don’t see anything in the Federal Act that precludes you from associating with other members of the unorganized militia. Even if you all go out camping and shooting together and create a “club” electing a President, VP, Secretary, Sgt. at arms etc. I cannot see how you are in violation of the law. The right of “free association” would seem to trump any attempted ban.

    Most members of the gun cub I belong to (established in the 1920′s) , that I have spoken to agree with most of my political philosophy. Since we have banded together in a voluntary association, obey rules, elect leaders could we not be defined in some ways as a “militia”?”

    NO! You are NOT “THE” Militia.

    You can call yourself what ever you want and play whatever “law abiding” games you wish. But you cannot “act” as “THE” Militia without being afoul of the law. You cannot present yourself to the public as “THE” Militia without being “untruthful”.

    The self Proclaimed “militia” groups Plainly has been addressing go beyond playing in the woods. They present themselves as “THE” Militia. They are not. They are not “authorized” by Common Law of the US, by the Constitution of the US or the Constitutions of the States, or any of the lesser laws, federal or state.

    Some of them actually threaten or take “actions” and thus are acting against the law when they do so.

    • JAC, As per Plainly and I’s discussion, Federal law does not outlaw militia’s. It does however outlaw paramilitary training IF the intent is to cause civil unrest/or any unlawful act. Many States however (most not read) read as though militias are illegal. Plainly and I agreed this to be the case, but didn’t delve into the State Laws themselves, it wasn’t necessary. The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the people forming militias. 🙂

      How is your day Sir? I hope the family is happy and healthy 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        But G, as JAC says, the Constitution says what ‘THE’ militia is and how it is formed.

        My whole argument is any ‘militia’ formed by private citizens, under no structure, control or authority of any level of government, are not legal militias in this country. While many states – like Colorado – ignore them if they don’t break laws, it wouldn’t take much to have the heat of government down on them should they start concerning the state or the feds by their existence.

        Technically any militia in my state not raised, equipped, trained and under the authority of the Governor is in violation of the state Constitution.

        I never said the Constitution prohibited forming militias by private groups, just that they were not THE militia of the governments, therefore outside the law.

        • They are not Government militias, I agree. They are outside the law, with the exceptions of State laws, no Federal law says this, therefore, where they are not outlawed by State law, they are legal. 🙂

          • plainlyspoken says:

            they are legal.

            Ok, we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

            • I would prefer that you show where they are made illegal, Federally, so as I may better understand your position. I agree with State laws making them illegal, and I agree that federal law outlaws paramilitary training, IF it’s intent is to do something illegal. But where are you getting “overall illegal” at the Federal level? Just asking, not being mean or anything of that nature. 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You need to grasp the reality that the Legal DEFINITION establishes what is a “legal militia”

                You are conflating a group of citizens acting on their own as being somehow a “militia” if they choose because they are not “illegal”.

                Their gathering and speeches and para military games are protected under OTHER parts of the Constitution and laws.

                They ARE NOT A MILITIA. Thus if they try to ACT AS A MILITIA they are ILLEGALLY ACTING AS A MILITIA.

                If they act against the Federal Govt without the Governor’s request they are guilty of sedition and treason or at lest of breaking other federal and state laws.

                I really don’t understand why you are so unwilling to admit these simple facts. Why not explain your reasoning for that instead of just claiming they are “legal”.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                *sigh* I will try one more time using Article 1 of the US Constitution. We need to look at Section 1 and a clause of Section 8.

                Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

                Section 8 clause: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

                Are these private militias: organized, armed, disciplined by the feds? Are their officers appointed by the state, trained and disciplined as proscribed by Congress?

                This is for the militia.

                (off to lunch with my wife – back later)

              • SIGH !!!!! Plainly, The Constitution establishes the Federal Government and the Government responsibilities and limitations. That is it’s ONLY purpose. It does not make anything legal or illegal pertaining to the actions of the people. It would say so if that was the intent. Nowhere in the Constitution is anything made illegal pertaining to the actions of the people, but it limits the Federal government ONLY.

                JAC, I have provided a dictionary definition of what I see as a milita, if you don’t like it, I can’t help that. I gave an example, The Michigan Militia. I have also stated that the civilian militia is not illegal unless there intent is illegal or the State has made their existence illegal. That’s true of any group of people.

                Guy’s if the problem is the definition, then we will just agree to disagree. I have provided one, with a link. I have provided my example, with a link. Now, based on MY definition and MY example, what exactly is illegal?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You have to pull a fast one with the “definition” for your statement to be true.

        A REAL MILITIA formed by citizens without Govt oversight and regulation is in fact ILLEGAL in the USA.

        This does not include a bunch of guys hanging out playing war games in the woods. Just because they call themselves militia does not make them THE militia.

        There is only ONE MILITIA in each State. It comes in two parts.

        Do you even realize that the definition your trying to use ONLY EXISTS because of these nutcases who started the anti govt groups in the past? And yes, most were nutcases. Racists, anti-semites, anti establishment, anti Govt to the point of being radical and nearly militant. Prior to the existence of these groups and their ability to gain “attention” and action by the Govt against them, the definition would not exist today. Because it did not exist prior to that time.

        Your argument amounts to these groups calling themselves Government. They call themselves what ever they want. It does not make them MILITIA any more than Government itself.

        • JAC, I’m reading dictionary definitions, nothing more. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL, except where States have made them so (which is the States right). Plainly and I already went through this part, go back and catch up please.

          • I will concede that the term “militia” has many different definitions and has changed over time. I’m going with the definition I provided above. If that don’t meet your definition, then the discussion is moot 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            They are NOT LEGAL MILITIA.

            The definition exists because the “crazy people” who formed these groups came to exist and the term became common among the media and people.

            That is how the Dictionary Definition came to exist. Just as how other words have definitions that are NOT consistent with there prior use.

            You will not find your Dictionary Definition when the Constitution was ratified, when the laws governing the Militia were enacted or when similar laws were established by the States.

            This “militia movement” is not THE MILITIA. They are not LEGAL MILITIA.

            • Feel free to argue with someone else then, I have presented my arguments on my terms, that is where I stand and how I view the terms. To continue on this road is fruitless, since you have gone from saying that the people are the militia to now adding stuff that was not the subject of the chat. If it makes you happy, a group of people who train somewhat like the military trains, and organizes somewhat like the military does, and only exists in a self defense mode does not meet YOUR definition of militia, or legal militia or whatever argument your trying to make, I can’t help you. I close my case, the one I made on my terms. If you want to change the terms, then its a different discussion.

  26. Article 1 of the US Constitution. We need to look at Section 1 and a clause of Section 8.

    Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Section 8 clause: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    BUCK, Does this clause make anything that the civilians do illegal?

    • LOL, Let me clarify, non-government civilians 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      From one of the ask legal question sites.

      Please note that “private militias” do NOT have the same LEGAL authorities or protections as THE LEGAL MILITIA.

      That difference is SIGNIFICANT which makes any argument that they are “legal” just a bunch of mush. So what if they can legally get together? The OPERATIVE issue is can they act as the militia? The answer is NO. NOT LEGALLY.

      Second Amendment
      The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.

      Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.

      In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that “a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.” After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that

      the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a “right” of the people, whereas others called it a “duty” of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.

      Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.

      At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.

      The precise wording of the amendment was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form. As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.

      In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.

      Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are “[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed.” Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are “the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be infringed.” Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical backdrop—highlighted by a general disdain for professional armies—would seem to support this theory.

      Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that “a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.”

      The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution’s meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection with an April 13, 1873, assault on two African–American men. One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court declared that “the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

      In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation, and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $10. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part, that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed and upheld Presser’s conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

      Despite this generous language, the Court refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, states may not abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part. Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, “The right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship.”

      The Presser opinion is best understood in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government. After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal encroachment on States’ Rights.

      Private Militias

      Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.

      Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, “No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor.” The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

      In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.

      Many private militias are driven by the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to “insurrect,” or take up arms against it.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), “[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a ‘right’ to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.” Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

      Some people have disagreed with the Supreme Court’s definition of tyranny. Many of these people label the state and federal governments as tyrannical based on issues such as taxes and government regulations. Others cite governments ponsored racial and ethnic Integration as driving forces in their campaign against the federal and state governments. Many of these critics have formed private militias designed to resist perceived government oppression.

      Some private militias have formed their own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs. The Freemen of Montana is one such militia. This group denied the legitimacy of the federal government and created its own township called Justus. The Freemen established its own court system, posted bounties for the arrest of police officers and judges, and held seminars on how to challenge laws its members viewed as beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to neighbors, the group also established its own common-law court system and built its own jail for the imprisonment of trespassers and government workers, or “public hirelings.”

      In the 1990s, the Freemen came to the attention of federal prosecutors after members of the group allegedly wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. One Freeman had also allegedly threatened a federal judge, and some had allegedly refused to pay taxes for at least a decade.

      In March 1996, law enforcement officials obtained warrants for the arrest of many of the Freemen. However, remembering the violence that occurred when officials attempted to serve arrest warrants on another armed group in Waco, Texas, in 1993, law enforcement authorities did not invade the Freemen’s 960-acre ranch in Jordan, Montana. Although the Freemen constituted an armed challenge to all government authority, its beliefs and its military activities were not illegal, and most of its members were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as Fraud and related conspiracy. Two men were also charged with threatening public officials. In addition, several Freemen faced charges of criminal syndicalism, which is the advocacy of violence for political goals.

    • The problem here, if I may, is that the three of you (G on one side; Plainly and JAC on the other) are talking over each other.

      G, you are discussing a militia. Plainly and JAC are discussing the Militia.

      Problem solved. I will send a bill for my time…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Hey, you will have to split that with me because that is what I said first thing this morning.

        I am a better Private lawyer, however. I used more words and thus had a greater billable time than you. 🙂

        Hope all is well with you this morning, well I guess afternoon on your side of the country.

        • LOL, true. JAC, also, THE ONLY ACTIONS THAT WERE PART OF THIS WAS THE ASSEMBLING AND TRAINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. In short terms, actions beyond that were not part of the equation. We are speaking of simple existence, with no actions outside of training and playing war 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I don’t think that is actually where you were starting this from. I think you were really trying to support the private militia view point that they can legally form and ACT against Govt if they view it as Tyrannical.

            Otherwise this entire discussion would not have happened.

            And note that I included a reference to the “Right to revolt” against Govt in the legal description I copied. SCOTUS has ruled we have no such “right”. That being a right protected by law.

        • I refuse to split my fee, however as it was G that asked for my involvement, G is responsible for payment.

          In line with today’s silliness, you may well be a lawyer but I am a Lawyer. Note the difference!

      • Buck, about my question on the Constitution?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes, the Constitution does make certain things illegal for individuals to do. That is unless Congress has “delegated” its authority to those individuals.

      When Congress is given the authority to coin money that means YOU do not have that authority and cannot issue legal money. It means congress can pass other criminal statutes to punish you for trying to issue money.

      I understand you are tying to point out that the document is primarily the charter for Fed Govt conduct but you have to recognize the indirect or “inferred” legal restrictions on both the States and Private Citizens per the powers vested in Congress, Executive and Supreme Court.

      • I will respectively disagree JAC. The Constitution grant Congress certain powers. In order to accomplish these specific powers it says: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

        They can make laws that makes them the SOLE money maker, but it doesn’t outlaw anything to the people. The fact that it sates they can make laws to accomplish the specific powers is clear on this. There is no “inference” of anything in the Constitution, unless you make it up.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I shouldn’t because it may open another long debate – but then I am not the smartest kid on the block, so here goes.

          G – So the Liberty dollar and coins are quite legal to produce and use then?

          • Oddly enough, there are lots of companies that make and sell silver/gold “coins”. While they are not set in value, they are used for investment/savings purposes. Federal Laws, that have been enacted by Congress and signed by a President define what is legal and not.

            If I’m not mistaken, silver and gold can be used as legal tender. That’s a good subject though, maybe we can hit on that one day. I’m sure there are specifics within the law that determines what is legal and not. I see commercials all the time about 1.5 oz silver coins, don’t you?

            • On the other hand, coins made of gold or silver may not necessarily be legal tender, if they are not fiat money in the jurisdiction where they are preferred as payment. The Coinage Act of 1965 states (in part):

              United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

              —31 U.S.C. § 5103

              There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]

              • In all reality, apples could be used as money, so do we outlaw apple trees because of the absurd inference that only Congress can coin money? NO, but Congress can pass a law that say’s apples can’t be used as money. See the difference?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well, once again I turn to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

                The Congress shall have power….To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

                Which would seemingly show that something like the Liberty Dollar was an illegal currency.

                Do I need to take aspirin now, or should I wait for the headache?

              • LOL, If you have a headache, it’s because you choose to read something into the Constitution that doesn’t exist and wasn’t intended.

                Simply: The Congress has the power to….. All it says is that the Congress has that power, nothing else… till later The Congress has the power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. As I said to JAC, there is no inference of illegality by the people in the Constitution. That is an assumption that holds no water. To prove this: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money. Article one, section 9, clearly prohibits the States.

                The writers of the Constitution were very clear in their intent. To claim inference is also allowing for a living document, which it is not. The Constitution is the law that Regulates the Government, not the people.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                You are splitting hairs Gman. That’s all I can say. The clause gives the Congress the right/authority to do something – not the state or the people. It is clearly a power reserved to the federal government as granted by “we the people”.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                dang, maybe I just broke SUFA by forgetting to close a bold tag.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Further the clause in Art 1, Sec 8 clearly delegates the power to the US. Therefore states or the people lose the power. Even under the Tenth Amendment:

                The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Buck, I need to run up my bill with you – am I off base here?

              • It’s Ok to disagree. I’ve been studying the crafting of the document for some time. To claim that the Constitution denies anything to the people is wrong. The only thing the document does is outline to government and it’s duties, which includes making laws. This is easy to prove actually. Name one citizen that has been convicted of violating the Constitution and sentenced to prison. You can look forever, you will only find convictions of Federal or State Law.

                The Constitution is to establish the government and their limitations (which no longer exist) and their powers. Section 9 is clear on how they need to do their job. We can play with semantics all week, but the reality is that the Constitution is ONLY about the Government, not the people. I would like to see what Money meant back then, that would help, just haven’t had time to look for it

                I’m not splitting hairs, I’m holding to the intent of the Constitution, to claim it “infers” some illegality by the people is no different than the Liberals claiming it’s a living document. It does neither and was not intended to do either 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                OK G. I am not going to get into further hair-splitting discussions like this. The Constitution refers power to and prohibits them from…..whether that be Congress, the states, or the people.

                While those powers granted the government are codified in the actual laws they institute, and those laws are what is violated, does not change the truth that the powers are granted to the government in the first place – not to the states or the people.

                So, you win – I quit this waste of time.

              • I was done yesterday, but someone needed to …. nevermind, not you. The answer is simple. Can an individual be found guilty of violating the Constitution? I would like to extend this question to everybody.

              • Nope, but G sure is 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                In writing Article II, Section Four, George Mason had favored impeachment for “maladministration” (incompetence), but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue.[4] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, have disputed this view and argue that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to have a much more expansive meaning.

                The Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

                Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: thirteen district court judges, one court of appeals judge (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 19 impeached officials, eight were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

                The 1797 impeachment of Senator William Blount of Tennessee stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. Because, in a separate action unrelated to the impeachment procedure, the Senate had already expelled Blount, the lack of jurisdiction may have been either because Blount was no longer a Senator, or because Senators are not civil officers of the federal government and therefore not subject to impeachment. No other member of Congress has ever been impeached, although the Constitution does give authority to either house to expel its own members (not members of the other chamber), which each has done on occasion (see List of United States senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded). Expulsion removes the individual from functioning as a representative or senator because of their misbehavior, but unlike impeachment, expulsion cannot result in barring an individual from holding future office.


              • plainlyspoken says:

                I’m guessing your response to what I just posted will be that it isn’t the same thing. But it’s all I could find – so, at best – the answer is yes & no.

  27. Happy Friday! Trying to beat the weather blues here in WI – more snow and nasty cold on it’s way. Love the change of seasons, but this global warming, polar vortex sucking winter just might make us Texas residents after all.

  28. Down here Plainly. My bad, I’m talking about non-government people,. I must be assuming that you understand I’m talking about non-government people. Let me rephrase. can a NON Government citizen be found guilty of violating the Constitution? Is there an example of this?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I doubt there is an example. They would be convicted of the laws created under the specific constitutional authority. I have never argued that laws are violated. As Buck pointed out, we are talking over each other. I am talking about powers and authorities outlined in the USC and you are speaking of federal legislation. Two different worlds of discussion.

  29. plainlyspoken says:
  30. There will be a new thread in the morning, so if anyone wants to post some musical videos and have some fun tonight, let’s do it! I’m will respectfully ask for a short cease fire on all political issues from 7pm EST till 7am EST. Any objections?

  31. I’m not a fan of Kid Rock per se, But it’s been fun watching him grow and progress with his music.

%d bloggers like this: