Militia Accused of Plotting War on U.S. Government

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3258647
What about the right to bare arms in you brought it up. When this was enacted the only gun was the muskette. Kinda hard to hide a muskette under the clothes. That amendment really needs to be redone. Nobody should have guns. Plain and simple. Why do people need guns? Hunting???Use bow and arrow. If your a good hunter you'll be fine. Why else do you need guns? You don't
anyways FREEDOM of SPEECH. For every action has a reaction. The bombing on 9-11. Why did it happen, we (the USA) but our noses where it doesn't belong. We need to be knocked down some pegs and that did it.
Why do you need freedom of speech? Maybe we can just toss out all the bill of rights
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3258677
On reason we got attacked on 9/11 was because little dummy Bush was hunting down Bin laden. The reason he was doing that was because Bin Laden put a hit out on bigger dummy Bush but failed and bush failwed to take Bin Laden out. So yeah check your history yourself before you start saying something. Plain and simple for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. We deserved what happen to us.
Your level of ignorance on this subject is stunning. And you call Bush Dummy?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
As far as Militias go the people in those pictures look like they all oozed out of the same shallow end of the pool.
When I worked in Montana one of the accounts I had to service was a Member of the Militia of Montana out in Thompson Falls. They seemed to be a pretty harmless political group but I can tell you a few of the guys who hung around this business, which just happened to be a propane distributor, knew their stuff. Didn't give ya a warm fuzzy knowing they had access to all that gas.
On the other hand down closer to where I lived you had the freemen in the Bitterroot valley. Pretty much all jaw and no teeth.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3258665
At the time, all we had was newspaper and our own physical speech. Now we have cell phones, texting, internet. Freedom of speech was never meant to have all these outlets. so we should just remove it from the constitution.
At the time of the constitution we didn't have this big of a population. It was never knew that peaceable assemblies could be in the millions........so lets throw this out as well. That many people chanting and protesting could lead to riots and harm.
Also at the time of the constitution they had no possible idea how much the military would cost to maintain. Therefore in the interest of cutting costs we should have military soldiers quartered in any home we desire to save cost to us the taxpayer. After all, the had no idea how large of an army we would need to maintain.
At the time of the constitution the framers had no idea we would have so many outlets to spreqad sedition and so many ways to cover up criminal activity. Therefore lets do away with the need for warrant and justifiable cause from our government to search our homes and seize our property.
scottnlisa you are a piece of work........................
Don't forget to use your stick, automobile, and golf club analogy to justify why we should bans those if we're going to ban guns.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3258743
Don't forget to use your stick, automobile, and golf club analogy to justify why we should bans those if we're going to ban guns.

Why would you favor allowing the government to take away any right specifically granted us in the Constitution? If they can screw with this one they can screw with them all.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3258800
Why would you favor allowing the government to take away any right specifically granted us in the Constitution? If they can screw with this one they can screw with them all.
Define 'the government'. Aren't WE THE PEOPLE 'the government'? So if anyone is going to take away rights that are defined in the Constitution, it will be us, the American Voters. This is where I see the disconnect. You think that 'the government' is some separate entity of individuals who wield these powers that the rest of us can't control. That they are these demi-gods that can decide in an instant what you can or cannot do with your 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. Well, we do have the power to remove the inviduals who we feel aren't representing us in a way we see fit. It's called VOTING. So if you can convince a majority of voters to think like you do, you can easily vote out 'this government' you feel is destroying your rights and freedoms.
As far as taking away rights defined in the Constitution? That's another 'enaliable right' we have as Americans. If a majority of American's agree that a specific right written in the Constitution needs to be modified so that it 'better represents' the values and beliefs of the country as a whole, a Constitution Amendment can be written to make that change. But as we know, that process is so entailed, that modifying any of our rights in what I call 'The Taboo Ten' would be next to impossible.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3258826
Define 'the government'. Aren't WE THE PEOPLE 'the government'? So if anyone is going to take away rights that are defined in the Constitution, it will be us, the American Voters. This is where I see the disconnect. You think that 'the government' is some separate entity of individuals who wield these powers that the rest of us can't control. That they are these demi-gods that can decide in an instant what you can or cannot do with your 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. Well, we do have the power to remove the inviduals who we feel aren't representing us in a way we see fit. It's called VOTING. So if you can convince a majority of voters to think like you do, you can easily vote out 'this government' you feel is destroying your rights and freedoms.
As far as taking away rights defined in the Constitution? That's another 'enaliable right' we have as Americans. If a majority of American's agree that a specific right written in the Constitution needs to be modified so that it 'better represents' the values and beliefs of the country as a whole, a Constitution Amendment can be written to make that change. But as we know, that process is so entailed, that modifying any of our rights in what I call 'The Taboo Ten' would be next to impossible.
Which is was on purpose designed to do. The flip side of that is the Texas constitution with has 5 or 6 amendments every year that pass. And over the last hundred years has had thousands of changes.
The fact that the U.S. Constitution has had what 17 amendments (with 2 wasted on prohibition) is evidence of the brilliants of the founding father's and their document.
I don't think there is a disconnect, I don't think the government is acting as an extension of the people (if they were they wouldn't have passed the healthcare bill). You yourself has argued many times, that the government is accesseble only to those with the $$ to buy the face time...
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3258835
Which is was on purpose designed to do. The flip side of that is the Texas constitution with has 5 or 6 amendments every year that pass. And over the last hundred years has had thousands of changes.
The fact that the U.S. Constitution has had what 17 amendments (with 2 wasted on prohibition) is evidence of the brilliants of the founding father's and their document.
I don't think there is a disconnect, I don't think the government is acting as an extension of the people (if they were they wouldn't have passed the healthcare bill). You yourself has argued many times, that the government is accesseble only to those with the $$ to buy the face time...
That is one of the major problems with our current political system. The average middle-class American citizen can't afford to hold pretty much any elected office unless they have some unlimited access to funds in which to campaign with. I'm sure when the Framers devised our election process, they couldn't imagine that only the elite would have the ability to run for a political office or position. Now that they've allowed major corporations to fund their favorite candidates, it makes it almost impossible for Joe The Plumber to run against incumbents that have billion dollar campaign 'war chests'.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3258826
Define 'the government'. Aren't WE THE PEOPLE 'the government'? So if anyone is going to take away rights that are defined in the Constitution, it will be us, the American Voters. This is where I see the disconnect. You think that 'the government' is some separate entity of individuals who wield these powers that the rest of us can't control. That they are these demi-gods that can decide in an instant what you can or cannot do with your 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. Well, we do have the power to remove the inviduals who we feel aren't representing us in a way we see fit. It's called VOTING. So if you can convince a majority of voters to think like you do, you can easily vote out 'this government' you feel is destroying your rights and freedoms.
As far as taking away rights defined in the Constitution? That's another 'enaliable right' we have as Americans. If a majority of American's agree that a specific right written in the Constitution needs to be modified so that it 'better represents' the values and beliefs of the country as a whole, a Constitution Amendment can be written to make that change. But as we know, that process is so entailed, that modifying any of our rights in what I call 'The Taboo Ten' would be next to impossible.
Which brings me back to my original question, why would you allow the government to just take away a right granted in the Constitution? Founders made it hard to amend for a reason. Changing the rules with a change of the political breeze would lead to chaos.
You say we are the government. I couldn't disagree more. In a pure democracy you would be right but in a constitutional republic we don't vote for anything but those who make the decisions and ram them down our throats. All we can do is vote for the other guy next time and hope they will listen to us.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3258853
That is one of the major problems with our current political system. The average middle-class American citizen can't afford to hold pretty much any elected office unless they have some unlimited access to funds in which to campaign with. I'm sure when the Framers devised our election process, they couldn't imagine that only the elite would have the ability to run for a political office or position. Now that they've allowed major corporations to fund their favorite candidates, it makes it almost impossible for Joe The Plumber to run against incumbents that have billion dollar campaign 'war chests'.
I'd be all for a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign or creating term limits. Yeah, the politicians are going to pass that through
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3258677
On reason we got attacked on 9/11 was because little dummy Bush was hunting down Bin laden. The reason he was doing that was because Bin Laden put a hit out on bigger dummy Bush but failed and bush failwed to take Bin Laden out. So yeah check your history yourself before you start saying something. Plain and simple for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. We deserved what happen to us.
OMG!!!!! You have no clue of history. we were actively hunting bin laden BEFORE 9/11? Bin Laden tried to kill Bush 1? Seriously? Because you are the only person in the U.S. with this information. What scares me is you vote also............Show me one piece of news, info, or anything stating this was what happenned before 9/11.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3258878
OMG!!!!! You have no clue of history. we were actively hunting bin laden BEFORE 9/11? Bin Laden tried to kill Bush 1? Seriously? Because you are the only person in the U.S. with this information. What scares me is you vote also............Show me one piece of news, info, or anything stating this was what happenned before 9/11.
Hell, one of the big bashes on Bush was he wasn't paying enough attention to Bin Laden before 9-11.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Steve Coll's Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 offers revealing details of the CIA's involvement in the evolution of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the years before the September 11 attacks. From the beginning, Coll shows how the CIA's on-again, off-again engagement with Afghanistan after the end of the Soviet war left officials at Langley with inadequate resources and intelligence to appreciate the emerging power of the Taliban. He also demonstrates how Afghanistan became a deadly playing field for international politics where Soviet, Pakistani, and U.S. agents armed and trained a succession of warring factions. At the same time, the book, though opinionated, is not solely a critique of the agency. Coll balances accounts of CIA failures with the success stories, like the capture of Mir Amal Kasi. Coll, managing editor for the Washington Post, covered Afghanistan from 1989 to 1992. He demonstrates unprecedented access to records of White House meetings and to formerly classified material, and his command of Saudi, Pakistani, and Afghani politics is impressive. He also provides a seeming insider's perspective on personalities like George Tenet, William Casey, and anti-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke ("who seemed to wield enormous power precisely because hardly anyone knew who he was or what exactly he did for a living"). Coll manages to weave his research into a narrative that sometimes has the feel of a Tom Clancy novel yet never crosses into excess. While comprehensive, Coll's book may be hard going for those looking for a direct account of the events leading to the 9-11 attacks. The CIA's 1998 engagement with bin Laden as a target for capture begins a full two-thirds of the way into Ghost Wars, only after a lengthy march through developments during the Carter, Reagan, and early Clinton Presidencies. But this is not a critique of Coll's efforts; just a warning that some stamina is required to keep up. Ghost Wars is a complex study of intelligence operations and an invaluable resource for those seeking a nuanced understanding of how a small band of extremists rose to inflict incalculable damage on American soil.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3258866
Which brings me back to my original question, why would you allow the government to just take away a right granted in the Constitution? Founders made it hard to amend for a reason. Changing the rules with a change of the political breeze would lead to chaos.
You say we are the government. I couldn't disagree more. In a pure democracy you would be right but in a constitutional republic we don't vote for anything but those who make the decisions and ram them down our throats. All we can do is vote for the other guy next time and hope they will listen to us.
Well if we're not the government, then why vote at all? Why admonish the people who are in office? Did they just magically show up on the Congress doorsteps and say, "Hey, I'm here to rule this country, and do only what I beleive in. To Hell with what anyone else thinks"? We as American citizens allowed for the corruption in Washington to happen. It's no one's blame but our own. We put some these career politicians up on their pedestals, and are too stupid to get rid of them when they get swelled heads and think they're invincible. People sit around and complain about "Big Government' taking our rights away, but don't want to do anything to change because their mindsets are "That's how it is in Washington. I'm just one person. I can't do anything to change it." I think this Tea Party movement actually is a start in that direction. However, the mindset of that group appears to be leaning WAY to right, thereby disenfranchising the other side of the group. Form a group that tries to stay as close to center as possible, and I'd even join that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top