Is it just me...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your miltia is your State National Guard

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think every able-bodied person in your state is in the "militia." I'm not certain of my definition.

Anyone who knows more about these things care to chime in and clarify? HDPM, maybe?

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
You must have missed the part about these rules:

[ QUOTE ]
In January 2003, Simcox was arrested by federal agents, accused of entering Coronado National Monument in Arizona while armed.

He was convicted of entering a federal park with a loaded weapon and offering false information to a federal officer, both misdemeanors, and was sentenced to two years' probation, court records show.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That was in the past. His probation period is over, has been for 6 months. I do know that if he's making sure his people have conceal-and-carry permits and follow the laws of the state of Texas, there are no problems with this at all.

I've said before, I don't necessarily agree with vigilante tactics, but they have the right to do what they're doing.

[coffeecrazy1]

No...I'm a Libertarian...don't know how you got to that question you just asked...

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a very convenient rule in America allowing this.

Its called the 2nd Amendment. Right to bear arms and have a militia. As long as they don't just go around shooting people, this is entirely legal. They're not going around lynching people or burning crosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got flamed for my position on guns when I first came to this wonderful forum. So in the interest of keeping things interesting, let me repeat my stance (with a slight alteration since I have learned something from some folks here):

The 2nd Amendment sucks.

I have changed my stance, however, from a desire to completely abolish it, to a desire to alter it: citizens should have a right to "bear arms" (a phrase that should be updated as well, btw) under certain limited circumstances.

Ok, let the gun lovers' flames begin.

Back to the subject: I was very much in favor of the Minutemen's actions in Arizona. It was effective and relatively peaceful, and it showed the country that something CAN be done relatively easily.

But I think OP's text shows that they seem to moving in the wrong direction. Sure it's legal, but that doesn't mean it is the best strategy. I'm afraid this will result in a bad incident, and any good PR that the Minutemen built up in their Arizona experiment will be lost.

-ptmusic

p.s. I think the comparison to the KKK is a bit premature, however.

I support the second amendment strongly but also think that the Minutemen are idiots who are accomplishing nothing.

[Cyrus]

Everybody else has figured out a long time ago what those "Minutemen" really stand for.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me or are the Minutemen beginning to remind anyone else of the Ku Klux Klan?

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I have changed my stance, however, from a desire to completely abolish it, to a desire to alter it: citizens should have a right to "bear arms" (a phrase that should be updated as well, btw) under certain limited circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It only restricts the government's ability to violate that right.

Self defense is a basic human right, and an absolute one.

Maybe the government should only allow you to assemble peaceably with groups that it approves. And you should have speech rights, except when the government decides that you shouldn't. And you can have your self-determination, too, except when the government decides they'd rather have you living somewhere else. Sounds good to me.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have changed my stance, however, from a desire to completely abolish it, to a desire to alter it: citizens should have a right to "bear arms" (a phrase that should be updated as well, btw) under certain limited circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It only restricts the government's ability to violate that right.

Self defense is a basic human right, and an absolute one.

Maybe the government should only allow you to assemble peaceably with groups that it approves. And you should have speech rights, except when the government decides that you shouldn't. And you can have your self-determination, too, except when the government decides they'd rather have you living somewhere else. Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn....I envy your ability to get right to the point, coupled with your biting sarcasm.

Please don't stop posting.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have changed my stance, however, from a desire to completely abolish it, to a desire to alter it: citizens should have a right to "bear arms" (a phrase that should be updated as well, btw) under certain limited circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It only restricts the government's ability to violate that right.

Self defense is a basic human right, and an absolute one.

Maybe the government should only allow you to assemble peaceably with groups that it approves. And you should have speech rights, except when the government decides that you shouldn't. And you can have your self-determination, too, except when the government decides they'd rather have you living somewhere else. Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We obviously have different ideas about what role a government should play.

Here's where you reply back with some sarcastic, holier-than-thou shtick about the one and only true definition of government's role.

-ptmusic

Dude, he destroyed you. Go back to defending the RIAA's fascism and stop whining.