The Second Amendment

Posted in the Young Harris Forum

Comments (Page 9)

Showing posts 161 - 180 of232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
BangMyHead

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to an individual perception of what constitutes an emergency dire enough to "call up" a local militia. In the scenario that was presented it really boils down to perception and how many will agree with a given position.
As far as which "side" I'm taking, I've stated that I support background checks for "private" sales, why should private sales not be subject to the same standards as a licensed dealer.
If you feel that this puts me on the wrong "side" then you'll not be surprized when I'm not among those who respond to the "call".

I expect a dire emergency would include the Feds attempting to take our guns away. No need for a "callup", as all it would take is agreement on a meeting place to form the militia ad hoc.(We don't need no stinking government involved).

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BangMyHead wrote:
<quoted text>
I expect a dire emergency would include the Feds attempting to take our guns away. No need for a "callup", as all it would take is agreement on a meeting place to form the militia ad hoc.(We don't need no stinking government involved).
"I expect a dire emergency would include the Feds attempting to take our guns away."
An old boogeyman pulled out whenever there's a Democrat in office.

"No need for a "callup", as all it would take is agreement on a meeting place to form the militia ad hoc."
Sounds more like a mob trying to sound legitimate, good luck with that rationale.

“Whine-It's all Bush's Fault”

Since: Feb 13

Blairsville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Feb 27, 2013
 
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to an individual perception of what constitutes an emergency dire enough to "call up" a local militia. In the scenario that was presented it really boils down to perception and how many will agree with a given position.
As far as which "side" I'm taking, I've stated that I support background checks for "private" sales, why should private sales not be subject to the same standards as a licensed dealer.
If you feel that this puts me on the wrong "side" then you'll not be surprized when I'm not among those who respond to the "call".
Yep, once again you confuse the issue for some with your sleight of hand.

Our very Nation was founded and defended by the people’s militia and that is the issue at hand.

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each 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,... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

During the nineteenth century, American militia saw action in the various Indian Wars and the War of 1812, the American Civil War and the Spanish-American War.

In the twentieth century The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 U.S.C.§ 311.

In the twenty first century a 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them".

And, I might add that if you will look a little further, you will also find the base matter discussed by James Madison, and other founders in the Federalist Papers.
Oh my

Hiawassee, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#175
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Yep- wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Yep, once again you confuse the issue for some with your sleight of hand.

Our very Nation was founded and defended by the people’s militia and that is the issue at hand.

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792...
The only sleight of hand is coming from you, since I was responding to someone who dreamed of calling up a local militia ad-hoc without the need for government sanction.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
"No need for a "callup", as all it would take is agreement on a meeting place to form the militia ad hoc.(We don't need no stinking government involved)."

And that "people’s militia" you dream of was a regulated affair in the sense that it was sanction by the colonial government and later by the state government, nothing ad-hoc about it except of course in it's general effectiveness (first to turn tail during the Rev War).

http://sos.georgia.gov/archives/what_do_we_ha...
Militia Districts had their origin in the colonial Acts of Jan. 24, 17551 and Sept. 29, 1773,2 and the basic principles were adopted and adapted in all subsequent enactments of the State Legislature. Originally the Provincial Governor, as Commander in Chief, was empowered to create Regimental and Company Districts and the field officers commissioned by him would define the lines of the King’s Militia Company Districts and designate the number of men constituting the Militia company in that District.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...It was natural, if not essential, for the leaders of the Revolution to glorify the citizen militia, for they were trying to rally a people without an army to war.

...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]

Most militiamen were not even good shots. We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America. We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns. When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working. In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."
OleBellesiles

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>

...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]
Most militiamen were not even good shots. We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America. We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns. When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working. In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."
Otherwise known as Ole Bellyache.
So far, the energetic debate about Mr. Bellesiles, scholarship and second chances on academic and education Web sites has focused mostly on his 2000 book,“Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.” It argued that most Americans did not possess firearms until after the Civil War, a radically different interpretation of the country’s gun-owning history and one that entangled him in the bitter and shrill argument over Second Amendment rights.

The ideological debate turned into a scholarly inquiry when critics pointed out several significant errors in fact and sources. An independent panel of three prominent historians concluded in 2002 that Mr. Bellesiles was “guilty of unprofessional and misleading work,”and raised questions about falsified data. Columbia University’s trustees took back the Bancroft history prize it had awarded the book, and Mr. Bellesiles resigned from the faculty at Emory University.

Looks like another fellow who said the Mayans were the ones who did the tracks on rocks in the Trackrock area of Union county and settled in North Georgia.

Another "Oh My" unrelialble source, among the many he uses.

“Whine-It's all Bush's Fault”

Since: Feb 13

Blairsville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
The only sleight of hand is coming from you, since I was responding to someone who dreamed of calling up a local militia ad-hoc without the need for government sanction.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run .... In reality, few Americans owned guns. When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working. In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."
Doesn’t actually matter who or what you were responding to, the issue is your creation of a diversion to reframe the issue to misrepresentations and distortions you prefer to discuss, or should I say confuse.

In most issues as you wade deeper and deeper into the weeds, you seek to not only to save face, but to also overwhelming deluge those reading of irreverent garbage in your efforts at leaving many with their heads spinning so as to push them from the debate, and leave for more brief and pleasurable conversations.

So in the interest of brevity, I focus upon your leftist, progressive, and socialist leaning and that of your sources as well. In this case Michael A. Bellesiles.

Michael Bellesiles: The historian who can't shoot straight.

Official announcement, by the Columbia University Board of Trustees, rescinding Bellesiles's Bancroft Prize.]
The Bancroft and Bellesiles, History News Network (December 14, 2002).

Columbia University's Trustees have voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize awarded last year to Michael Bellesiles for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. The Trustees made the decision. Based on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians.

On October 25, 2002, following this review, the panel issued a report.

In it, the panel members found "evidence of falsification" with respect to one of the questions they were asked to consider; spoke of "serious failures of and carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of quantitative analysis" on two others; and questioned "his veracity" with respect to a fourth. They also concluded that he had "contravened" the norms of historical scholarship both "as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association's definition of scholarly 'integrity.'"

Of course there is much more, but already I’ve left the realm of brevity.
Oh my

Hiawassee, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh well, Michael A. Bellesiles, guess you can't believe everything you read on the net.

Now can someone explain how an ad-hoc local militia is not a vigilante mob.

“Whine-It's all Bush's Fault”

Since: Feb 13

Blairsville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
Oh well, Michael A. Bellesiles, guess you can't believe everything you read on the net.
Now can someone explain how an ad-hoc local militia is not a vigilante mob.
Why would one want to continue to placate pointless tantrums?

Yep, it’s much too time consuming.

There is simply just so much to do for those of us who are truly determined to stand upon our principals and defend the liberties we so fear are slipping away; even as we race to neutralize the unfortunate and misguided efforts of dissidents who have naïvely succumbed to the blindness of killing the goose who laid the golden egg.

You seem to enjoy killing time, I am confident you are capable of researching militias’ vs vigilantes.

Start with a simple dictionary. Should clear it right up, if not I understand you claim expertise with “meaningful research.”
Wheeler

Jefferson, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In Union county none of this has anything to do with the 2nd ammendment but has everything to do with the biggest and most exciting day of the year. Thats the day all you goobers sight in your deer rifles and get to wear the new camo you got for christmas.
course the camo is already stained with jelly donut drippings or gravy off your biscuit. This is a day bigger than the major athletic events in union county such as grease ploe climbing or the big biscuit eatin contest.

When you all start shooting it sounds like the civil war all over again.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yep- wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Why would one want to continue to placate pointless tantrums?
Yep, it’s much too time consuming.
There is simply just so much to do for those of us who are truly determined to stand upon our principals and defend the liberties we so fear are slipping away; even as we race to neutralize the unfortunate and misguided efforts of dissidents who have naïvely succumbed to the blindness of killing the goose who laid the golden egg.
You seem to enjoy killing time, I am confident you are capable of researching militias’ vs vigilantes.
Start with a simple dictionary. Should clear it right up, if not I understand you claim expertise with “meaningful research.”
Obviously you have a comprehension problem, perhaps you're just toooo busy chasing the windmills of those slipping freedoms. To review, the question dealt with ad-hoc militias that don't need no government sanction, the kind some dream of when defining enemies who are killing our liberties.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Groans wrote:
<quoted text>Groanssssssssssssssss.

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
Any old country boys who want to get together and protect our constitution.


Privately organized citizen militia-related groups blossomed in the mid 1990s, which collectively became known as the constitutional militia movement. The supporters have not been affiliated with any government organization, although many have been military and law enforcement veterans.[need quotation to verify]

In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".[58]

In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.[59]

Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the emergent threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.[60] There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.



Put aside your liberal prejudices Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Interesting that you believe asking a question and seeking the opinion of others is a "Liberal Prejudice ";

If so, put me down as having the prejudice in favor of knowledge and interest in others' opinions. That's the stinking "educated electorate" idea that Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson believed in.

It follows then than not seeking knowledge and ignoring the opinions of others is a Right Wing mindset.

Perhaps you want to re-think aligning yourself against learning and open-minded inquiry ?

Or not.

Many Right Wingers are proud of their ignorance and their lack of of interest in others opinions.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Groans

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you have a comprehension problem, perhaps you're just toooo busy chasing the windmills of those slipping freedoms. To review, the question dealt with ad-hoc militias that don't need no government sanction, the kind some dream of when defining enemies who are killing our liberties.

"There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law."

A party of one can make up a militia, including you. So go play with your windmills.
Groans

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that you believe asking a question and seeking the opinion of others is a "Liberal Prejudice ";
If so, put me down as having the prejudice in favor of knowledge and interest in others' opinions. That's the stinking "educated electorate" idea that Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson believed in.
It follows then than not seeking knowledge and ignoring the opinions of others is a Right Wing mindset.
Perhaps you want to re-think aligning yourself against learning and open-minded inquiry ?
Or not.
Many Right Wingers are proud of their ignorance and their lack of of interest in others opinions.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Since when have you ever been interested in others opinions?

All I ever read from you is the same rants, over and over. "Bored" has it right, you are boring to the nth degree.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that you believe asking a question and seeking the opinion of others is a "Liberal Prejudice ";

If so, put me down as having the prejudice in favor of knowledge and interest in others' opinions. That's the stinking "educated electorate" idea that Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson believed in.

It follows then than not seeking knowledge and ignoring the opinions of others is a Right Wing mindset.

Perhaps you want to re-think aligning yourself against learning and open-minded inquiry ?

Or not.

Many Right Wingers are proud of their ignorance and their lack of of interest in others opinions.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Another version of what is meant by "a militia":

In colonial America, regulars were a rare sight. If military activity was needed, the militia, consisting of all adult males, was called out. Mustering days for the militia were often relaxed affairs, with picnics, parades, speeches by local politicians, drinking, and maybe a little drill for the militia. Officers were often elected at the company level, with higher officers appointed by the governor of the colony.

So:

- the "well regulated" "militia" existed because there was no standing army;

- today we have the largest standing army on the planet and spend more on the War Department than the rest of the world combined to protect the 50 states; and

- Every state has a "well regulated" "National Guard" that responds to emergencies to protect that particular state;

Is the National Guard the "well regulated" militia" described in the Constitution ?

If not, who "regulates" the "militia" made up of me and my buddies and our AKs, AR-15s, and S&W 15s ?

and who are we protecting the "State" from ?

Just wondering.
Groans

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Another version of what is meant by "a militia":
In colonial America, regulars were a rare sight. If military activity was needed, the militia, consisting of all adult males, was called out. Mustering days for the militia were often relaxed affairs, with picnics, parades, speeches by local politicians, drinking, and maybe a little drill for the militia. Officers were often elected at the company level, with higher officers appointed by the governor of the colony.
So:
- the "well regulated" "militia" existed because there was no standing army;
- today we have the largest standing army on the planet and spend more on the War Department than the rest of the world combined to protect the 50 states; and
- Every state has a "well regulated" "National Guard" that responds to emergencies to protect that particular state;
Is the National Guard the "well regulated" militia" described in the Constitution ?
If not, who "regulates" the "militia" made up of me and my buddies and our AKs, AR-15s, and S&W 15s ?
and who are we protecting the "State" from ?
Just wondering.

Some of us militias are protecting our county from the likes of you and Oh My.

Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>I see militia groups mentioned in the news all the time and all over the world, one militia holds one side of town, while another militia holds the other side of town. I'm sure that each group was "called up" due to the perception of a local emergency.

Funny how each group will swear that only they are in the right to take such action.
You miss the point - the important thing is that in Mogadishu the people are not oppressed by intrusive government.

That's why folks in Somalia are so happy. No liberal socialist commie intrusive government is telling them how to live their lives by God.

Folks there are not burdened by government regulation, and they are heavily armed.

Ah Somalia - Unregulated Capitalism at its finest.
Wheeler

Jefferson, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Another version of what is meant by "a militia":
In colonial America, regulars were a rare sight. If military activity was needed, the militia, consisting of all adult males, was called out. Mustering days for the militia were often relaxed affairs, with picnics, parades, speeches by local politicians, drinking, and maybe a little drill for the militia. Officers were often elected at the company level, with higher officers appointed by the governor of the colony.
So:
- the "well regulated" "militia" existed because there was no standing army;
- today we have the largest standing army on the planet and spend more on the War Department than the rest of the world combined to protect the 50 states; and
- Every state has a "well regulated" "National Guard" that responds to emergencies to protect that particular state;
Is the National Guard the "well regulated" militia" described in the Constitution ?
If not, who "regulates" the "militia" made up of me and my buddies and our AKs, AR-15s, and S&W 15s ?
and who are we protecting the "State" from ?
Just wondering.
We may be protecting the states from loonies and boring posters from Nipples florida
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously you have a comprehension problem, perhaps you're just toooo busy chasing the windmills of those slipping freedoms. To review, the question dealt with ad-hoc militias that don't need no government sanction, the kind some dream of when defining enemies who are killing our liberties.
I think we need to call up the good 'ol boys with their rocket launchers and bazookas to force that restaurant that refuses to provide table service to recognize our God-given 'Merican right to order sweet tea while sittin down.

Besides, we can't find those black helicopters the U.N. sends to steal or freedoms, and until I get to point my AR-15 at my neighbors kid to make her have that baby, who am I gonna have to shoot ?
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Groans wrote:
<quoted text>"There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law."

A party of one can make up a militia, including you. So go play with your windmills.
"A party of one can make up a militia" ?

Please - You really don't believe that.

Apparently the Constitution contemplated a guy named "Bob", organizing and regulating himself, to stand alone, protecting and defending against the hoards of invaders from foreign nations.

Wait - I saw that movie.

But I didn't take it seriously.

Dictionary Definition-

Militia: noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Groans wrote:
<quoted text>Since when have you ever been interested in others opinions?

All I ever read from you is the same rants, over and over. "Bored" has it right, you are boring to the nth degree.
Thanks for reading.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 161 - 180 of232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Young Harris Discussions

Search the Young Harris Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 7 min jemima 47,575
Where Is YOUR SPLOST MONEY Going? 41 min commenting 197
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) 3 hr Hasty 2,038
Super Gary Steppe Union Schools wants Pay raise 4 hr happy 6
Autopsies performed on bodies found in Blairsvi... 4 hr big news 4
Patrick Malone 9 hr its me again henry 12
GoodTimes` 12 hr dead 9
•••
•••

Young Harris News Video

•••
•••

Young Harris Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Young Harris People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Young Harris News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Young Harris
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••