militia

[wondering]

Is there a regional militia group around here? I'm not talking about a radical hate group. I'm talking about a legal, legitimate, group that trains to respond to assist with disasters and such. There are several in the state just haven't heard of one in our area.

[guest]

Try checking with city hall or the police dept. They ought to know.

[Guest]

wondering wrote:

Is there a regional militia group around here? I'm not talking about a radical hate group. I'm talking about a legal, legitimate, group that trains to respond to assist with disasters and such. There are several in the state just haven't heard of one in our area.

Yes, they are called the Army National Guard. Feel free to enlist into that "well regulated militia", and they will even issue your own assault rifle.

[well]

I spoke to a couple law enforcement people some time ago and we didnt have any around here at the time. I do know that they have one in western Missouri because I have a cousin that is a member. His militia group worked along with and with the approval of the Missouri highway patrol during the Joplin tornado cleanup. They helped with search and rescue and debris cleanup. A lot of people don't realize that the missouri constitution allows for a militia. I think many people have a bad misconception of militias that are unwarranted. The militia that he's in requires a background check prior to being a member and their is a waiting period before anyone can be a full member. They have periodic training in first aid, survival training and yes some firearm training. Unlike being a part of the national guard (which is tax funded), the militia membership is voluntary. My cousin has a full time job and its more of a hobby. Unlike the guard if he can't make a training weekend, he's not obligated. They are not the extremist that a lot of people would like to imagine them to be. They are not secretive and do everything out in the open. Hope this helps.

[for sure]

Let's start our own SEMO Militia!!!

[Watermark]

for sure wrote:

Let's start our own SEMO Militia!!!

Sounds like a real blast. A bunch of fat clowns setting around, drinking beer while wearing military clothing and trying to impress each other with their bigger or faster shooting gun. All the while pretending they are the "well trained and regulated militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment - just minus the muskets. Yeah, truth Patriots that would end up getting in the way or getting themselves killed in a real emergency. Whoooo.

[Sheriff]

Watermark wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like a real blast. A bunch of fat clowns setting around, drinking beer while wearing military clothing and trying to impress each other with their bigger or faster shooting gun. All the while pretending they are the "well trained and regulated militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment - just minus the muskets. Yeah, truth Patriots that would end up getting in the way or getting themselves killed in a real emergency. Whoooo.

Watermark, you are a sour person. Enjoy the coming dictatorship you ignorant fool. You have no respect for America and our constitution..

[guest]

Watermark wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like a real blast. A bunch of fat clowns setting around, drinking beer while wearing military clothing and trying to impress each other with their bigger or faster shooting gun. All the while pretending they are the "well trained and regulated militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment - just minus the muskets. Yeah, truth Patriots that would end up getting in the way or getting themselves killed in a real emergency. Whoooo.

Have you actually read the second amendment through and through? Have you done your research?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. <--(See that? bear arms! not "bear muskets") It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.<---(see that?! FIREARMS. Not "muskets")

Thank you. ;)

[guest]

well wrote:

I spoke to a couple law enforcement people some time ago and we didnt have any around here at the time. I do know that they have one in western Missouri because I have a cousin that is a member. His militia group worked along with and with the approval of the Missouri highway patrol during the Joplin tornado cleanup. They helped with search and rescue and debris cleanup. A lot of people don't realize that the missouri constitution allows for a militia. I think many people have a bad misconception of militias that are unwarranted. The militia that he's in requires a background check prior to being a member and their is a waiting period before anyone can be a full member. They have periodic training in first aid, survival training and yes some firearm training. Unlike being a part of the national guard (which is tax funded), the militia membership is voluntary. My cousin has a full time job and its more of a hobby. Unlike the guard if he can't make a training weekend, he's not obligated. They are not the extremist that a lot of people would like to imagine them to be. They are not secretive and do everything out in the open. Hope this helps.

OH AND ALSO...

Written by our founding fathers---
"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball:***OR WITH A GOOD RIFLE***, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his ***RIFLE***, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

This is just part of it. Now. I see the word rifle in there, and I also see that a rifle is ALLOWED. So, that being said, do your research next time.

[guest]

Watermark wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like a real blast. A bunch of fat clowns setting around, drinking beer while wearing military clothing and trying to impress each other with their bigger or faster shooting gun. All the while pretending they are the "well trained and regulated militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment - just minus the muskets. Yeah, truth Patriots that would end up getting in the way or getting themselves killed in a real emergency. Whoooo.

ONE MORE POST...

Now let's talk about the court... THE UNITED STATES VS MILLER:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. This meaning 2nd amendment rights apply to all "arms", as state in the constitution.

We are only practicing the rights out founding fathers have given us.:) get out of your bubble.

[guest]

Watermark wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like a real blast. A bunch of fat clowns setting around, drinking beer while wearing military clothing and trying to impress each other with their bigger or faster shooting gun. All the while pretending they are the "well trained and regulated militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment - just minus the muskets. Yeah, truth Patriots that would end up getting in the way or getting themselves killed in a real emergency. Whoooo.

I lied. One more. Sorry once you get someone who enjoys law talking, she won't stop ;)

The oath taken by members of Congress as they are sworn in does not include the phrase “protect and defend,” nor does it include anything about protecting the American people, though it does include a vow to defend the Constitution.

The congress' oath is as follows:
“I,(name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The presidential oath is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

NOW, these two oaths are involved around protecting the constitution, meaning not letting anything happen to it, as well as preserve it...do you know what a synonym of preserve is? Maintain...keep the same...etc.

The argument made by the president on the 2nd amendment is based around "protecting the US citizens", but guess what! It's not in his oath to protect us!!!! WE ARE ABLE BODIED. IT IS IN HIS OATH TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION. Something he is failing to do.

[1911-A1]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>I lied. One more. Sorry once you get someone who enjoys law talking, she won't stop ;)

The oath taken by members of Congress as they are sworn in does not include the phrase “protect and defend,” nor does it include anything about protecting the American people, though it does include a vow to defend the Constitution.

The congress' oath is as follows:
“I,(name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The presidential oath is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

NOW, these two oaths are involved around protecting the constitution, meaning not letting anything happen to it, as well as preserve it...do you know what a synonym of preserve is? Maintain...keep the same...etc.

The argument made by the president on the 2nd amendment is based around "protecting the US citizens", but guess what! It's not in his oath to protect us!!!! WE ARE ABLE BODIED. IT IS IN HIS OATH TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION. Something he is failing to do.

Good read

And good luck trying to get through his smoke and mirrors. Lol. He just loves to muddy up the waters

[Watermark]

Sheriff wrote:

<quoted text>
Watermark, you are a sour person. Enjoy the coming dictatorship you ignorant fool. You have no respect for America and our constitution..

You call me a sour person because I disagree with your fear stricken, pathetic mindset and because you cannot refute the things I say.

Dictatorship? Grow up. Learn what a real Dictatorship is. Let me remind you that if Obama was a dictator, he wouldn't of tanked his first debate nor had to try to win Ohio so hard. He wouldn't present bills to Congress and he wouldn't give a damn about healthcare.

You lost the election. Get some air, some perspective and deal with it.

[Watermark]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you actually read the second amendment through and through? Have you done your research?
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. <--(See that? bear arms! not "bear muskets") It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.<---(see that?! FIREARMS. Not "muskets")
Thank you. ;)

First of all, if you are going to address me you should somewhat understand my stance on this issue. I am not a supporter of gun bans, unless said guns contain military designed features.

As for the 2nd amendment you tout, while ignoring the 1st, let me ask you a few questions. Show me your "well regulated militia"? Also, illustrate how your "state" is under threat of not being "free".

The last question, is to explain the logical, legal civilian uses of a 30+ round magazine, flash suppressor and bayonet lug. Go!

[Watermark]

1911-A1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good read
And good luck trying to get through his smoke and mirrors. Lol. He just loves to muddy up the waters

There are no "smoke and mirrors", just words that formulate opinions and questions that illustrated your inability to address them. And of course, made you run away like a scared child.

For someone like yourself, who posted racial insults and mocked shooting victims under the username "Balls That Clank", it should surprise nobody that you align yourself with the Republican party, racial hate and the pro-gun nuts. Good luck in 2016.

[1911-A1]

I do feel sorry for you. To live a life so sad and alone.

[guest]

well wrote:

I spoke to a couple law enforcement people some time ago and we didnt have any around here at the time. I do know that they have one in western Missouri because I have a cousin that is a member. His militia group worked along with and with the approval of the Missouri highway patrol during the Joplin tornado cleanup. They helped with search and rescue and debris cleanup. A lot of people don't realize that the missouri constitution allows for a militia. I think many people have a bad misconception of militias that are unwarranted. The militia that he's in requires a background check prior to being a member and their is a waiting period before anyone can be a full member. They have periodic training in first aid, survival training and yes some firearm training. Unlike being a part of the national guard (which is tax funded), the militia membership is voluntary. My cousin has a full time job and its more of a hobby. Unlike the guard if he can't make a training weekend, he's not obligated. They are not the extremist that a lot of people would like to imagine them to be. They are not secretive and do everything out in the open. Hope this helps.

I think a good idea would be to hold neighborhood meetings. Ours did back during the earthquake scare a few years ago.

You could find out who has room or would be willing to take people in. It was said in the event of a major quake, a slab house would stand a better chance of surviving than one on cement blocks, basements. Supplies could be brought in and people would be banding together for better survival.

Just a thought.

[guest]

Watermark wrote:

<quoted text>First of all, if you are going to address me you should somewhat understand my stance on this issue. I am not a supporter of gun bans, unless said guns contain military designed features.

As for the 2nd amendment you tout, while ignoring the 1st, let me ask you a few questions. Show me your "well regulated militia"? Also, illustrate how your "state" is under threat of not being "free".

The last question, is to explain the logical, legal civilian uses of a 30+ round magazine, flash suppressor and bayonet lug. Go!

So, now you are changing your views? Because, on another thread you were all for gun control, etc.

As for "my state not being free"...the 2nd amendment states that if a US citizen feel their amendment rights are being compromised, or taken away, they may create a well regulated militia. So, there you go.

Third, DOES IT MATTER? Honestly? Does it? No. These shootings the government have used to push gun control on us have all been by a man on the SAME KIND OF MEDICATION. Maybe they should look into that before looking into guns.

One person is killed every half hour by drunk driving... OHHH LET'S CONTROL THE KIND OF CARS PEOPLE BUY!!
Yeah, like that will help.

It does not matter what type of gun someone owns, guns are capable of killing people if placed in the hands of a killer... I REMEMBER A WISE PRESIDENT ONCE SAID "as soon as the government stops trusting its citizens with guns, it's citizens should stop trusting the government."

Plain and simple. Taking away "certain parts" to our 2nd amendment is just like taking away certain parts of any other amendment. Like, for example, the first amendment. It states we have freedom of press, religion, speech, etc. okay say the government takes away "religion" out of that statement. That wouldn't be fair now would it? No.

That being said, no part of my amendments will be taken away. NONE. As I said before, maybe they should look into the medicine each man was taking during the shootings before blaming it all on guns.

The UK/England/Britain has gun control, but guess what... Statistically wise, they have more violence, murders, Etc... We are not even in the top ten.... Thanks. Goodbye

[Watermark]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
So, now you are changing your views? Because, on another thread you were all for gun control, etc.

As for "my state not being free"...the 2nd amendment states that if a US citizen feel their amendment rights are being compromised, or taken away, they may create a well regulated militia. So, there you go.

The UK/England/Britain has gun control, but guess what... Statistically wise, they have more violence, murders, Etc... We are not even in the top ten.... Thanks. Goodbye

First, there is no change in my stance on this issue. I am for reasonable and logical gun control. Our society has no business in owning firearms that were designed for and used by our military. There is no logical, legal civilian application for the military designed features of a flash suppressor, bayonet lug or 30+ round magazine. If there is, tell me right now. And while you try, remind yourself the AR-15, which often comes standard with this features, was used in the last four active shooter incidents this nation has suffered. Also, show me a Presidential supported piece of legislation that outlines a plan to seize guns already legally owned.

You said, "the 2nd amendment states that if a US citizen feel their amendment rights are being compromised, or taken away, they may create a well regulated militia." Really? It says that? Give me a link to where the 2nd amendment specifically says that. Again, tell me about your "well regulated militia".

Lastly, the UK does have harsh gun control regulations and they have FAR, FAR less gun related violence, murders, Etc than we do in the US per capita. But if you feel otherwise, give me a valid, legitimate link that proves your point. You can't.

The bottom line is that you are compassionate about something you have no accurate comprehension of and you're reciting things that are totally false. Falsities that I am willing to bet you used as a basis for your stance on these issues.

[Not So Fast]

Guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they are called the Army National Guard. Feel free to enlist into that "well regulated militia", and they will even issue your own assault rifle.

The National Guard isn't the only militia in Missouri. And they are not a "bunch of old men sitting around drinking beer".

http://2ndbrigade.missourimilitia.com/