Re-Form Militias In Case Supremes Rule Gun Ownership Only For "Well Regulated Militia"?

If they vote against guns, it will be another trigger that will set off the Civil War predicted by John Titor.

maybe some of the retired generals who have been criticizing W and the Iraq war will step in

big things could happen if generals at that level organized militias ... if 10s of millions joined

that would certainly get the attetion of the f'ing Zionist Occupation Government, wouldn't it?

if people like Ricardo Sanchez, Wesley Clark, were to head up a militia, i think 10 million or more would join.

A well regulated militia is what the constitution says. On the other hand, back when we had militias membership requirements in my state were merely males with one eye and one arm...and on the other other hand the Constitution places no restrictions on what sort of arms people should be allowed to bear and legally I should be able to buy a surplus MIRV off the Russians.

Personally, I think certain kinds of weapons should be restricted. No civilian-owned MIRVs. Also, you can carry a MAC 11 into a pizza parlor and tear the place up before anybody has a chance to blink, but it won't work so well if you have a rather conspicuous AK-47 on your shoulder. Ban, say, concealable weapons that hold more than 6 rounds without reloading. Or at least that's the way I would do it.

i think you're too worried about dying, and not worried enough about having everything that makes life worth living taken from you by a tyrannical state

yeah, someone might kill 30 people in a mcdonalds with a submachine gun

that person will eventually be caught, executed or imprisoned for life.

who cares. i'm willing to take a 1/1000 risk, over my lifetime, of being mowed down by a nutjob with a MAC. that risk is worth taking in order that the public can be an armed deterrent to an oppressive state, and to organized criminals, for that matter.

i think that the public has to have access to sufficient weaponry to enable them to overcome the power of the military and overthrow the government, given sufficient numerical advantage. that was really the purpose of the 2nd ammendment.

If they where to do that, I would predict that there would be alot more Militia's formed in this country...

It depends on how your state has defined it's militia. In Alaska the state made this the definition:
Alaska Statute 26.05.010. Alaska Militia Established

(a) The militia of the state consists of all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who reside in the state, who are at least 17 years of age, and who are eligible for military service under the laws of the United States or this state.

(b) The militia is divided into two classes:

(1) the organized militia, consisting of the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, and the Alaska State Militia, and

(2) the unorganized militia, consisting of all qualified persons available for service but not serving in the organized militia.

(c) The adjutant general may, by regulation, prescribe the maximum age for eligibility in the militia.


As you can see #2 clearly makes pretty much every one over 17 part of the "unorganized militia". So some states have already taken care of this within their own legislature. Since as a citizen in Alaska I am part of the unorganized militia at this time and I will need a firearm just in case...in case of what you may ask...read the constitution it says why I get to keep a gun!

time to join a militia is now, if the supreme court rules against gun ownership, local laws could result in gun confiscation at any time

Look -- there have been plenty of chances for this to be challenged. Now that Alito and Roberts are on the court, the case can be heard.

It's pretty much the same for NC. Everyone is in the militia so we all have a right to keep guns and bear them if called to action.

I respect your opinion, but I made my statements according to extraneous logic. Modern guerrilla wars are not fought with submachineguns and assault rifles. If you watched the news carefully attempts to stand up to our forces in Iraq in a direct firefight resulted in some fairly hefty casualties among the insurgents. Infantry can't stand up to tanks and aircraft without tanks and aircraft of its own. Every single time the insurgents have tried this, they have lost. So did the Polish when they tried to fight Hitler's tanks with courage and cavalry.

Modern guerrilla wars are fought most effectively with plastique and C4 in shaped charges and maybe a sniper rifle This is how we would beat the government. Its also how the Timothy McVeighs and the DC snipers of the world go about organized and well thought out attempts to kill large numbers of people, and by making it legal to just have a couple of bricks of C4 in your closet it will make things that much easier for fringe nutjobs to get it together enough to hurt large numbers of people. Pick your poison. I pick only small modifications to existing gun laws, and The Anarchist's Cookbook's recipes for homemade explosives. Call me a coward...but the people and the government have me approximately equally scared so we stay close to the status quo.

The government will never allow a "well regulated miltia" to form.

If it did form it would be the target of Blackwater and their ilk.

I don't think there is much to worry about.

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts are all pro-2A, we only need 1 more, I can easily see this going 6-3 in favor of people's rights.

if you're not more scrared of the govt, you must not be aware of what the govt is up to

[link to www.geocities.com]

more likely it's what the zionist occupation government is up to, but that doesn't alter the need for militias to counter it

protecting the viability of programs of abuse discussed in that website was exactly why the zionist occupation government carried out the Oklahoma City Bombing

the networks of traiterous and psychopaths, and just generally gullible white-trash, lead by blood sucking zionists, have to be rooted out and utterly destroyed, they and all of their ilk, and militias would seem to be the only defense we have, because the f*ng zionists already have seized control of federal law enforcement, local law enforcement, the military to some extent, you name it

It appears that Jefferson likely plagiarized
the Declaration of Independence from George
Mason's "Virginia Declaration Of Rights", which
he published one month before July 4th, 1776.

Quote from Wikipedia:
The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document
proclaiming that individual natural rights are
inherent, and calling for American independence
from Britain. It was adopted unanimously by the
Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776

Quote regarding the Declaration of Independence
from:
[link to www.archives.gov]

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and
June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence
is at once the nation's most cherished symbol
of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument.
Unquote

From the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

[link to www.yale.edu]

Quote:
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper,
natural, and safe defense of a free state; that
standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided
as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases,
the military should be under strict subordination to,
and be governed by, the civil power. Unquote

You also may take notice of Article 1 of the
Virginia Declaration Of Rights, and notice that
it does include the "unalienable right of property".

Without the "property right", an individual human
cannot sustain and maintain the unalienable right
of "life", if the owner of all property is a
despotic corporation called a State or Crown.
[And, such now is the case].

Just more proof that the "so-called Founding Fathers"
were traitors to the American people. George Mason
refused to participate in the treason.

i think you are right

the michigan militia was once very active, i bet active membership has dropped by 80% in just the last ten years, of course, no one turned in any weapons or stock piles of ammo, so all it would take is a little push in the right direction and millions would be armed, in just my state

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 Section 23:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


What does this mean?

What is the Texas definition of a militia?

But not so fast, this same Supreme Court ordered the halt of the vote count, that helped W get into office. And seeing how a majority of them have been nominated by past PTB puppets it isn't a stretch of the imagination to see them see screwing the people so to help the NWO plan to take over and possible allow the confiscation of arms THEN some type of martial law declared...

If they end weapons restrictions one day, I would like a nice shiny new Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). Nothing gives off such pretty fireworks at night.

I want an AA12!
[link to www.defensereview.com]

I WANT them to rule against the 2nd ammendment, this country is overdue for a revolution.

you and me both

can we start yet?

If the second Amendment is indeed overthrown, I suspect there will be several million American citizens who will be quite unwilling to surrender their arms. Sadly, I also suspect the vast majority of those several million gun-owners will quickly 'come around,' as in, they'll lose their resolve and in a bout of cowardice, will comply. I'm not certain what exactly the end-result will be though. Sure, most citizens are fearful conformists who will obey their oppressors, even when the order is so blatantly in opposition to the Constitution itself. The thing is though, people who own firearms, believe they should be allowed to possess them, and desire their posession. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have bought them and kept them. What's more, they often strongly wish to own the weapons, if not, they wouldn't have shelled hundreds and in some cases, thousands of dollars for the weapons, ammunition and accessories. As such, I feel we should at least see quite a few Waco-like incidents occurring for a significant duration of time. Just as in New Orleans, there's going to be a myriad of individuals who would rather fight than surrender their constitutionally allowed protective devices.

All government agencies would have their hands entirely too full dealing with the situation, as there'll be a potential fire-fight around each corner. If the situation progresses, the US could find itself in something of a state of civil war even, starting with the gun owners defending themselves from the government, and as a result of being 'wanted' for not surrendering those weapons which the government knows they have, and thusly not being able to go to work for fear of being detained, gun owners will be forced to conduct robberies just to acquire the supplies they need to live, such as food. There could be 'pockets of insurgents,' and many 'terrorists' being rounded up. There begins your martial law, and wide-spread civil war.

But, I doubt the government would allow the situation to escalate into that, and I doubt the Americans are brave, and strong enough to do that which is necessary to hold onto the little bit of freedom they have left. The very little bit. I don't see weapons being outlawed in general as this court case points to being a possibility - it's just not what I'm going to bet on. We'll just have to see though.

Not so fast! It's not a free pass. "[A]ll qualified persons available for service" doesn't mean anyone with a pulse - it depends on how they choose to define "qualified" if/when the time comes. And if they impose military-type restrictions (minimum and max first-signup age, health, etc.), a lot of people would get knocked right out of the box.