The Washington County Militia

[cocothief]

There are other ways of doing things. If I questioned the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church I wouldn't go start a militia up either.

[Mith242]

Guess I'm just more distrustful about my illegally armed neighbors than the government over at DC. I also don't care if statistics show automatic weapons aren't used in many crimes. I have to agree with hogwash. I just don't see any need to have them and don't see why I should feel sympathy for people who feel they should own them. But as was before, everyone is deeply rooted in theirs beliefs in the matter and I doubt we're going to change anyone else's mind here.

[hogwash]

FYI, fully automatic weapons, including machine guns are legally purchased by U.S. citizens. They are highly regulated, and owners are required to report movement of said weapons, and pay a tax and tag fee to keep them recorded. The guns themselves are excessively expensive, as are registration fees, so the number of owners is quite low.

"Assault weapons" are widely owned, yet crimes with said weapons are exceedingly rare. I disagree wholeheartedly with your belief they should be banned.

Ownership of assault weapons does not imply intent to kill others, otherwise crimes with assault weapons would be much more common than they are.

Construction of WMDs is pretty simple (see OKC) and those who have the intent to do harm to massive numbers of others can find a way, legal or not, and much cheaper than constructing actual military grade "bombs".

As for the WC Militia, I believe its their right to fire guns; big scary guns that make people like you squirm. There is no proof of their intent to harm anyone. In fact, I don't believe you'll find any evidence of them using their weapons to commit crimes against others. Their only crimes consist of (I believe) modifying certain weapons, which are arbitrarily banned by the U.S. government.

Mentioning "children" being present at their meetings or whatever, is just an example of media slant, implying that children are endangered by being around firearms. I helped my 6 year old nephew fire his first 22 at a firing range this summer. Big deal.

As for your statement that assault weapons aren't "toys", I am confident that 99% of assault weapons owners are aware of this fact. In fact, those I know are exceedingly careful and respectful of their weapons, and are highly trained and skilled in their use and care.

I personally own a few guns which you believe are intended to kill people with.

They are kept in my home, under lock and key.

The only people who need worry about being killed by my weapons are those who attempt to commit crimes against me or my family.

[johnnydr87]

Oh yeah, I forgot this topic was about the Washington County Militia. We should just let the supreme wisdom of our government decide how best to handle the situtation. Us "citizens" (almost said sheep) should only be concerned about going to work, paying taxes and procreating future tax-payers.

[masons_dad1]

Your signature is hilarious.

[johnnydr87]

Really, your quote treads on revolutionary philosophical ground. I'm quite surprised Hegel, Hume, Roussea, Descarte, and others have not offered similarly astounding assertions.

If anyone honestly thinks that a militia could safeguard Americans against its own government if a worst case scenario were to play out--they are sorely mistaken. Governments don't need force to coerce people these days (that's if they wanted to coerce people)--they're much more sophisticated than that.

The battle is psychological and mental. I'm reading a book called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, the "father of modern linguistics" (i.e. Stephen Hawkings of linguistics), and it discusses how the government (and corporations), well, manufacture consent through a complex, subtle array of controls. (No, there isn't some despotic tyrant dictating the news...)

That said, these guys' little militia ain't gonna do nothin' but serve as an empty pose of bravado--more dangerous to the the surrounding community than to the government. Good luck with that, children.

[masons_dad1]

1. Really, your quote treads on revolutionary philosophical ground. I'm quite surprised Hegel, Hume, Roussea, Descarte, and others have not offered similarly astounding assertions.

2. If anyone honestly thinks that a militia could safeguard Americans against its own government if a worst case scenario were to play out--they are sorely mistaken. Governments don't need force to coerce people these days (that's if they wanted to coerce people)--they're much more sophisticated than that.

3. The battle is psychological and mental. I'm reading a book called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, the "father of modern linguistics" (i.e. Stephen Hawkings of linguistics), and it discusses how the government (and corporations), well, manufacture consent through a complex, subtle array of controls. (No, there isn't some despotic tyrant dictating the news...)

4. That said, these guys' little militia ain't gonna do nothin' but serve as an empty pose of bravado--more dangerous to the the surrounding community than to the government. Good luck with that, children.

[Arkansas Student]

Really, your quote treads on revolutionary philosophical ground. I'm quite surprised Hegel, Hume, Roussea, Descarte, and others have not offered similarly astounding assertions.

The battle is psychological and mental. I'm reading a book called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky, the "father of modern linguistics" (i.e. Stephen Hawkings of linguistics), and it discusses how the government (and corporations), well, manufacture consent through a complex, subtle array of controls. (No, there isn't some despotic tyrant dictating the news...)

[johnnydr87]

1. If those guys are so smart why aren't their quotes being used as signatures?

2. Yet, coersion is much simpler when the victims are disarmed. Lying to people isn't "sophisticated."

3. That's why more Americans need to be armed with knowledge and owning a reliable firearm isn't a bad idea either.

4. I believe Militias, including this one, claim to be dangerous only to those that pose a threat to their freedom. A loaded weapon is no "empty pose of bravado."

[masons_dad1]

1. I didn't know you measure a person's intelligence by how many people quote him/her in signatures. My bad.

2. No. Coercion is simpler if you have them on your side to begin with. I forgot which general said that 90% of battle is psychological.

And it isn't simply "lying"--that's a vast oversimplification. In many cases it isn't even lying, it's selective dispersal of information, etc.

3. Uh huh.

4. Define freedom.

It IS an empty pose of bravado. They'll NEVER have to fight the US government or ever be put in that position.

Arkansas Student, point taken. Perhaps I need to read up more on Hume. I just personally found the example overly-abstract and irrelevant to discussion here. I don't know that my red is your red, or my blue is your blue. So what...

[johnnydr87]

Yeah I forgot, you are right and I am wrong. Please forgive me for doubting your supreme intellect.

[masons_dad1]

It happens.

That's a good quasi-sarcastic copout to use whenever you don't want to discuss the intellectual merits of the opposing person's argument.

[johnnydr87]

I feel that the discussion requires more common sense than philosophy.

[masons_dad1]

You are disturbed and your lack of any 'real' intelligence is shining through. You can reword my statements any way you like, but it's pretty clear what I said:

"You obviously want to have an intellectual discussion about things as mundane as freedoms, militias and government corruptions and I feel that the discussion requires more common sense than philosophy."

If you didn't understand the meaning of what I said then you should just admit you don't understand. You can continue having philosophical discussions with yourself since that's what seems to make you feel more intellectual. I'll stick to the more "mundane" discussions about the Militia and leave the "philosophy" to 'bright' people like you.

That's really funny, because you're using the exact argument I used here:

Honestly, borrowing someone else's argument doesn't help yours. Especially when your argument is so vague (presumably to give a faux-sense of deeper understanding) and unnecessarily throws in "big" words to, well, lend it some intellect.

Anyways, I will respond to your post like it is legitimate, even though it would be like killing a kitty.

Isn't that what this topic is about? Do you know what mundane means, and is it relevant to your sentence? You really think "freedoms, militias and government corruptions" are dull, yet you're posting on "The Washington County Militia" thread?

Really????

Ok then. I'm done.

P.S. Those three nouns are at the root of our discussion here. What are we talking about? (Militias.) Why does this militia exist? (Freedoms/rights) To what extent do freedoms or rights allow them to operate like this? Why do they feel the need to exist? (Government corruption.)

P.P.S. "[F]reedoms, militias and government corruptions" are not philosophy. At least not in the sense we're talking about them.

[johnnydr87]

You are disturbed and your lack of any 'real' intelligence is shining through. You can reword my statements any way you like, but it's pretty clear what I said:

"You obviously want to have an intellectual discussion about things as mundane as freedoms, militias and government corruptions and I feel that the discussion requires more common sense than philosophy."

If you didn't understand the meaning of what I said then you should just admit you don't understand. You can continue having philosophical discussions with yourself since that's what seems to make you feel more intellectual. I'll stick to the more "mundane" discussions about the Militia and leave the "philosophy" to 'bright' people like you.