Jump to content

The Washington County Militia


Recommended Posts

In talking about knowledge, we need to be careful how complacent/confident we become in our "knowledge" of the world. There's a whole school of philisophical thought that claims we only "know" what we directly (personally) experience.

For example, do I really know that Australia exists? I haven't been there, I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I haven't touched the ground or felt the air. Sure, I've seen pictures. I've seen moving pictures. I've met people who claim to be from Australia, and others who claim to have been there. But, when it comes down to it, I don't really "know" because I haven't experienced it. However, I "believe" it exists. Therefore the two words, on occassion, are interchangeable.

Now, it's justifiable for me to just believe in Australia because I trust my sources. Take that same statement and apply it to anything to anything else that others would claim to "know" exists.

I know my computer exists because it's right here in front of me. But I don't really know if any of YOU exist because I've never met you. The universe could be playing a giant trick on me. Or it could be playing one on you. How do YOU know that I exist?

You don't "know" that every morning, when you get out of bed, you're not going to be crushed by an airplane that falls out of the sky. You have simply conditioned yourself to "believe" that you won't be crushed, which allows you the confidence to get up and start the day. In this way, belief overrules knowledge.

We don't "know" that the sun is going to come up every morning, we just "believe" it will. On the day that it doesn't, our belief will be proven wrong and we will "know."

In other words, don't get too comfortable with believeing or knowing. The universe isn't on your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's good to know a bunch of guys will save Black Oak Road when the British invade. I suppose they will line up by the city yard with their muskets and defend to the death. Come on..a militia? It's 2007. This is nothing more than a a few people who want an excuse to break laws and own fully automatic weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to know a bunch of guys will save Black Oak Road when the British invade. I suppose they will line up by the city yard with their muskets and defend to the death. Come on..a militia? It's 2007. This is nothing more than a a few people who want an excuse to break laws and own fully automatic weapons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to know a bunch of guys will save Black Oak Road when the British invade. I suppose they will line up by the city yard with their muskets and defend to the death. Come on..a militia? It's 2007. This is nothing more than a a few people who want an excuse to break laws and own fully automatic weapons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was better off dead, but oh well. Where was the National Guard when people were being raped, robbed and murdered in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast? Come on guys, the National Guard takes orders from the government and they can't even wipe their own a$$es without getting an appropriations bill for toilet paper passed through Congress. Most of the New Orleans police department stood back in shock and watched the chaos happening before their eyes. The Militia is needed. Katrina is evidence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was better off dead, but oh well. Where was the National Guard when people were being raped, robbed and murdered in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast? Come on guys, the National Guard takes orders from the government and they can't even wipe their own a$$es without getting an appropriations bill for toilet paper passed through Congress. Most of the New Orleans police department stood back in shock and watched the chaos happening before their eyes. The Militia is needed. Katrina is evidence of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that would depend on the Militia. They may have used the chaos in New Orleans as an opportunity to go on a killing spree, but I'm not going to pass judgment on people who's only crime is to hold civil liberties and religious right above federal or governmental regulations. If the government won't respond to disasters like Katrina who will? I believe Militias are needed and can be a valuable asset to cities and states IF those Militias are lawful and organized. If I was to operate a Militia I would expect it to have a purpose and a plan of action in situations that call for a Militia; namely the Katrina disaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting aside other militias. I still have to question this one when they've already shown that they don't have plans to follow the law. If they have already broken laws by having illegal weapons then how do I know they won't go break some other laws as well. I also would have to question what plans they would lay out if there ever was a disaster here. So far their actions have done nothing to make me trust them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On guns:

The disconnect with these folks and "regular" folks is the fact that there are certain firearms which are deemed illegal.

The Constitution did not specify that U.S. citizens had the right to bear "arms approved by the government". It just said "arms".

These folks disagree with the government's current stance of illegalization of certain firearms.

I personally own a few firearms. I'd say the vast majority of firearms owners are law-abiding, decent, patriotic people.

I have never considered using my firearms for criminal activity. Neither have the vast majority of gun owners.

I have no problem with people owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I don't have the same trust in our government that some of you express.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM the government's unchecked power.

I personally believe that the fact that the U.S. Constitution was prohibited as a defense in this case is absurd, and quite frankly, frightening.

U.S. citizens should not fear their government. It should be the other way around.

It was the original intent of the founding fathers that it be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have problems with people owning guns. But it just seems to me that this 'militia' has an agenda. That and when they start stocking up on illegal weapons I start getting more concerned. I still the thing that causes a lot of the problems is that they consider themselves a 'militia'. I believe you have to be recognized by the state and such to be an actual militia. And of course they aren't recognized as a militia because militias went away with the National Guard in each state. I also don't believe in all this 'militia men are exempt from any laws except for treason'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On guns:

The disconnect with these folks and "regular" folks is the fact that there are certain firearms which are deemed illegal.

The Constitution did not specify that U.S. citizens had the right to bear "arms approved by the government". It just said "arms".

These folks disagree with the government's current stance of illegalization of certain firearms.

I personally own a few firearms. I'd say the vast majority of firearms owners are law-abiding, decent, patriotic people.

I have never considered using my firearms for criminal activity. Neither have the vast majority of gun owners.

I have no problem with people owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I don't have the same trust in our government that some of you express.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM the government's unchecked power.

I personally believe that the fact that the U.S. Constitution was prohibited as a defense in this case is absurd, and quite frankly, frightening.

U.S. citizens should not fear their government. It should be the other way around.

It was the original intent of the founding fathers that it be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On guns:

The disconnect with these folks and "regular" folks is the fact that there are certain firearms which are deemed illegal.

The Constitution did not specify that U.S. citizens had the right to bear "arms approved by the government". It just said "arms".

These folks disagree with the government's current stance of illegalization of certain firearms.

I personally own a few firearms. I'd say the vast majority of firearms owners are law-abiding, decent, patriotic people.

I have never considered using my firearms for criminal activity. Neither have the vast majority of gun owners.

I have no problem with people owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I don't have the same trust in our government that some of you express.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individuals FROM the government's unchecked power.

I personally believe that the fact that the U.S. Constitution was prohibited as a defense in this case is absurd, and quite frankly, frightening.

U.S. citizens should not fear their government. It should be the other way around.

It was the original intent of the founding fathers that it be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be opposed to me owning a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb or a cruise missle? I'm just "arm"ing myself...

See how ridiculous that sounds? You're taking something written over 200 years ago and trying to apply that language to today, a time where arms are radically different. It just doesn't make any sense. Even if it were to only apply to firearms, would that apply to nonconventional future firearms that don't even fire bullets? If not, would that right essentially become meaningless in the future? You have to draw the line somewhere... I trust the government more than I trust you. I elect them. I have no say in what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I think you could already argue we aren't the country that was founded in 1776. I do think some circumstances have changed since the founding of the country and that needs to be taken into effect. The founding fathers didn't know what today's country would be like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever think that "today's country" is a direct result of too many amendments to the Constitution? The US Constitution is basic law upon which our society is built. It's a foundation and not something to be customized whenever a President and his Congress decides. Change the Constitution and the basic laws are replaced by tyranny and corruption. "Basic Law" is NOT a hinderance to advances in culture, science, and peace. The only time the US Constitution is a hinderance is when a corrupt political leader can make a fortune by selling our civil liberties to the wealthy and to the big corporations in order to protect those companies from "basic law."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be opposed to me owning a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb or a cruise missle? I'm just "arm"ing myself...

See how ridiculous that sounds? You're taking something written over 200 years ago and trying to apply that language to today, a time where arms are radically different. It just doesn't make any sense. Even if it were to only apply to firearms, would that apply to nonconventional future firearms that don't even fire bullets? If not, would that right essentially become meaningless in the future? You have to draw the line somewhere... I trust the government more than I trust you. I elect them. I have no say in what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the Constitution didn't draw a line. I made reference to a 1 megaton bomb, cruise missle, or howitzer to point out that a line has to be drawn. You feel that me having a howitzer is crazy, but personally I feel you having an AK-47 is equally crazy. I would just be more prepared to defend my neighborhood than you would that's all. You feel the line is one location and I feel its in another location. I don't think private citizens should own assualt rifles. You don't need one unless you are planning to kill someone.

I didn't imply that I whole-heartedly trusted the government. I just trust it more than you or anyone else. That simply means I have absolutely no trust in you or your motives. Really, they are obliged to have the interest of the public, not ME, at heart. You are obliged to do what is best for you and I can do nothing to change that.

I feel only trained and regulated persons should have access to assualt weapons. I would not be opposed to the national guard being placed fully under state control and becoming completely unassociated with the federal government. Militias must be regulated, some government entity must have some level of oversight and provide TRAINING. I've seen videos of the Washington County Militia. They were firing weapons and had little kids running around. Let's just be serious those guys aren't soldiers. They are just normal people who have guns and like to shoot them. Really that's what its about. Assualt weapons aren't toys. They are specifically designed typcially for military use to be superior instruments of death. They need to be in the hands of people that completely respect that, not some Joe Blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the Constitution didn't draw a line. I made reference to a 1 megaton bomb, cruise missle, or howitzer to point out that a line has to be drawn. You feel that me having a howitzer is crazy, but personally I feel you having an AK-47 is equally crazy. I would just be more prepared to defend my neighborhood than you would that's all. You feel the line is one location and I feel its in another location. I don't think private citizens should own assualt rifles. You don't need one unless you are planning to kill someone.

I didn't imply that I whole-heartedly trusted the government. I just trust it more than you or anyone else. That simply means I have absolutely no trust in you or your motives. Really, they are obliged to have the interest of the public, not ME, at heart. You are obliged to do what is best for you and I can do nothing to change that.

I feel only trained and regulated persons should have access to assualt weapons. I would not be opposed to the national guard being placed fully under state control and becoming completely unassociated with the federal government. Militias must be regulated, some government entity must have some level of oversight and provide TRAINING. I've seen videos of the Washington County Militia. They were firing weapons and had little kids running around. Let's just be serious those guys aren't soldiers. They are just normal people who have guns and like to shoot them. Really that's what its about. Assualt weapons aren't toys. They are specifically designed typcially for military use to be superior instruments of death. They need to be in the hands of people that completely respect that, not some Joe Blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.