Jump to content

Recommended Posts

to be fair the militias duty is to home land security....not to" the dept of"though....there not going to call upon a constitutional militia of any sort....my opinion i cant back with facts... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind them partroling borders they seem to be doing a actual job with a purpose.

 

What else would they do ?  They are keeping illegals out and protecting the border and the people who need it.  That area has people begging for help.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Megatron said:

So you planned to use force ? How was that force going to be applied ? 

you sound like your fixin to report someone should i watch what i say to...dont call the f.i.b we mean no harm to anyone.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ripcannon said:

you sound like your fixin to report someone should i watch what i say to...dont call the f.i.b we mean no harm to anyone.

Report what?  That in 1986 resister  told cops you use force to defend somones property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Megatron said:

I don't mind them partroling borders they seem to be doing a actual job with a purpose.

 

What else would they do ?  They are keeping illegals out and protecting the border and the people who need it.  That area has people begging for help.

 

 

maybe but whos right is to say were another man walks southern american or not....god givin rights to all man kind.....again my opinion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

maybe but whos right is to say were another man walks southern american or not....god givin rights to all man kind.....again my opinion 

Are you validating open borders? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it civil or this thread is going to get locked again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im just a simple constitutionalist...i get both ways...but you cant have your cake and eat it to..we either oppress peoplesgod givin rights or we dont we dont have to always like it but im not for blocking people...but again im not for forced citizenship either... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Megatron said:

Forced citizenship? 

 

I think (and this is my opinion and I could be totally wrong) what  he is referring to is the post I made discussing citizenship being earned in a fashion similar to what Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers (the book and not the cheezy movie). That could easily be construed as a form of forced citizenship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if you guys want to have an open borders debate that really doesn't relate to "How to Start a militia". I suggest starting a new thread in the genral area and discussing it like rational mature adults, because if you can't conduct civil discourse on an internet forum how are you going to deal with the guy that lives down the road (whose armed) when things go south? Plus you never learn anything from arguing with folks that agree with you. It's OK to have differing opinions. It's not OK to attack someone over them here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt suggest a thing just expressed my opinion you ask for plus if i did suggest something nothing would happen i have no authority over what goes on at the border.........im NOT a REPUBLICAN but i vote that way never voted democrat...i think nobody should tell  ANY man certain things thats all.... ive seen how MOST republicans and democrat's think god givin rights only fall to Americans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Skillet said:

Ok if you guys want to have an open borders debate that really doesn't relate to "How to Start a militia". I suggest starting a new thread in the genral area and discussing it like rational mature adults, because if you can't conduct civil discourse on an internet forum how are you going to deal with the guy that lives down the road (whose armed) when things go south? Plus you never learn anything from arguing with folks that agree with you. It's OK to have differing opinions. It's not OK to attack someone over them here.

just answering questions bro...im done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

to be fair the militias duty is to home land security....not to" the dept of"though....there not going to call upon a constitutional militia of any sort....my opinion i cant back with facts... 

 

NOTE:  I did not see the previous posts before posting this, but it will connect to how to start a militia just in case anyone wants the rest of the rant below

 

May I do a little history lesson with you?  Feel free to ignore this if it comes out wrong:

 

In 2003 some Salvadorans were trespassing over private property in an effort to evade immigration authorities.  That property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue at the behest of the property owner.  An altercation ensued; the Salvadorans got the short end of the stick; the matter ended up in court.  The Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison and the land owner lost his property to the Salvadorans.  The judge in the case ruled that Ranch Rescue had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/leiva-v-ranch-rescue

 

While that case was being litigated, some neo-nazis founded the so - called "Minutemen" and they dusted off David Duke's old Border Watch program from the 1970s.  With the help of the media, the feeding frenzy over so - called immigration began to destroy the militia as most people abandoned their posts to play Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security back up types.  

 

In the midst of this debacle, the militia debated this many times on the now defunct AWRM board.  My personal suggestion was to appeal the verdicts, but nobody wanted to get into a court-room fight.  It was too inviting to be able to go to the border and have an excuse to carry a rifle and play soldier.  But, what happened is that the court established that, under the 14th Amendment, the undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped the private property Rights of American land owners.  For me, that meant that the militia split into two factions.  Not wanting to be associated with neo nazis AND not wanting to adopt Bill Clinton's talking points, I became a part of the militia that lost.  Well... sort of.  

 

Those who became obsessed with immigration ended up backing proposals that cost the American people TRILLIONS of tax dollars and did not accomplish anything for the constitutionalists that had bankrolled the militia for a decade and a half.  The effort to repeal the 16th Amendment died because the neo-nazis convinced the Tea Party Republicans to pass the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify (keeping the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops Social Security Number as your de facto National ID number), the so - called "Patriot Act" was the work of the Tea Party Republicans... not to mention the Constitution Free Zone, the end to the a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring of the American people and today, even Trump is playing a game with those of that mindset (having suggested you need ID to buy groceries.)  He knows better; he just realizes where we're headed with this unsound policy.

 

The federal government has only one job relative to immigration:

 

"Congress shall have the power  ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  (Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

 

Until 1876, who got invited into a given state was under the jurisdiction of the state.  The federal government could only bestow  the privilege of citizenship.  The United States Supreme Court , in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman,  chastised the immigration officials in California over this issue when challenged.  According to Wikipedia:

 

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

 

Most likely, what would have happened is that the case would have went to the state's favor (then again, those state officials might not wanted to have done their job.)  But, to resolve the issue, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all facets of immigration. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power

 

The real issue is, there is not a place in the Constitution that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant any other branch of government any powers whatsoever.  So, while those who obsess over immigration consider what they're doing a "win," I can show you case after case where the precedents have been used against constitutionalists.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

May I do a little history lesson with you?  Feel free to ignore this if it comes out wrong:

 

In 2003 some Salvadorans were trespassing over private property in an effort to evade immigration authorities.  That property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue at the behest of the property owner.  An altercation ensued; the Salvadorans got the short end of the stick; the matter ended up in court.  The Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison and the land owner lost his property to the Salvadorans.  The judge in the case ruled that Ranch Rescue had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/leiva-v-ranch-rescue

 

While that case was being litigated, some neo-nazis founded the so - called "Minutemen" and they dusted off David Duke's old Border Watch program from the 1970s.  With the help of the media, the feeding frenzy over so - called immigration began to destroy the militia as most people abandoned their posts to play Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security back up types.  

 

In the midst of this debacle, the militia debated this many times on the now defunct AWRM board.  My personal suggestion was to appeal the verdicts, but nobody wanted to get into a court-room fight.  It was too inviting to be able to go to the border and have an excuse to carry a rifle and play soldier.  But, what happened is that the court established that, under the 14th Amendment, the undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped the private property Rights of American land owners.  For me, that meant that the militia split into two factions.  Not wanting to be associated with neo nazis AND not wanting to adopt Bill Clinton's talking points, I became a part of the militia that lost.  Well... sort of.  

 

Those who became obsessed with immigration ended up backing proposals that cost the American people TRILLIONS of tax dollars and did not accomplish anything for the constitutionalists that had bankrolled the militia for a decade and a half.  The effort to repeal the 16th Amendment died because the neo-nazis convinced the Tea Party Republicans to pass the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify (keeping the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops Social Security Number as your de facto National ID number), the so - called "Patriot Act" was the work of the Tea Party Republicans... not to mention the Constitution Free Zone, the end to the a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring of the American people and today, even Trump is playing a game with those of that mindset (having suggested you need ID to buy groceries.)  He knows better; he just realizes where we're headed with this unsound policy.

 

The federal government has only one job relative to immigration:

 

"Congress shall have the power  ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  (Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

 

Until 1876, who got invited into a given state was under the jurisdiction of the state.  The federal government could only bestow  the privilege of citizenship.  The United States Supreme Court , in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman,  chastised the immigration officials in California over this issue.  According to Wikipedia:

 

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case"

 

Most likely, what would have happened is that the case would have went to the state's favor (then again, those state officials might not wanted to have done their job.)  But, to resolve the issue, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all facets of immigration. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power

 

The real issue is, there is not a place in the Constitution that grants the United States Supreme Court any authority to grant any other branch of government any powers whatsoever.  So, while those who obsess over immigration consider what they're doing a "win," I can show you case after case where the precedents have been used against constitutionalists.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Can you tie this into how to start a militia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to slight, trying to tie the convo back into the thread topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whiskey6 said:

Can you tie this into how to start a militia?

 

Let me do that for you right now:

 

Since coming onto this board I have asked uncomfortable questions.  They are uncomfortable because on this one issue, there are some serious players.  One can be killed for asking the wrong questions.  However, if you start a group, you must be able to articulate what it is you do; what you believe; what your reason for existence is.  To that end, I ask people WHICH Constitution they are taking an oath to defend.  Are you defending the original Constitution OR the living Constitution?

 

If you believe in the Constitution as originally written and intended, then the states, not the federal government gets to decide who may come and go within their state.  The federal government only has constitutional authority to decide who does or does not become a citizen.  While the federal government has a legal obligation to protect the borders, they do not have the authority to tell a state who may come and go.  

 

If you start a militia, this is the FIRST order of business.  You have to decide which Constitution you're going to support.  On immigration,  it appears, at first glance, that we lose.  But, the reality is, the word "legal" when applied to immigration generally implies citizenship... and so we get a million new "citizens" each year, many who do not and will never share your enthusiasm for Liberty nor the Constitution.  We end up subverting the very Constitution we take an oath to preserve, protect and defend.  We allow a million new people to become citizens and then have some people tell us, you get the government you voted for.   

 

In the original Militia of Georgia handbook, on page 3 new recruits are informed:

 

"We maintain that we are, ideologically, strict constructionists with respect to the Constitution, but we also maintain that the current government in America is de facto (illegal) in nature..."

 

If you are called upon to turn in your weapons, if you support the living Constitution, you have agreed to be bound by that interpretation of the law.  If not, you can cite the legal authorities in your favor.  The current immigration laws were conceived via an unconstitutional process.  So, you cannot support the living Constitution on one issue and claim your Rights on another issue under an original reading of the law.  You have to pick a side.  Otherwise the oath basically is:  If I like the law, I'll obey it and when I don't I will disobey it.  Me, personally, I will disobey all unconstitutional laws equally, and use as my defense original intent of the Constitution.  That way, I'm covered in keeping my oath and have a consistent rendering of the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2018 at 9:18 PM, Megatron said:

I don't mind them partroling borders they seem to be doing a actual job with a purpose.

 

What else would they do ?  They are keeping illegals out and protecting the border and the people who need it.  That area has people begging for help.

 

 

 

Border patrolling is not a constitutional function of the militia and it gives the liberals a reason to question the pretexts for having civilian militias in the first place.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/usmilitias/issues-and-answers-f69/

 

What else would militias do?

 

In their roles as CITIZENS

 

Educate themselves on the issues

Plan strategies for political and social change

Offer actual solutions to the elected leaders

Engage the public on matters of political and social importance

Work to improve the image of the militia

Network on places like discussion boards and have actual conversations

Organize crime watch neighborhoods

Have get togethers in your homes and find new members, supporters

Build community relationships

 

In their roles as SOLDIERS

 

Recruit

Teach / Train

Prep

Build solid community relations

Network

Find avenues upon which to build bridges of cooperation between other militia units

Exhaust their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress to avoid / minimize possible SHTF scenarios

Present to the public a group of educated, informed, dedicated and honorable citizens with the will to fight against tyranny

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy