November 4, 2015 at 1:22 am #44816November 4, 2015 at 2:05 am #44817
Good video , it changes nothing ……………………this redneck will be armed , no matter what the law is , no matter what the government says .November 4, 2015 at 2:09 am #44818
Agree with you Tolik.November 4, 2015 at 4:07 am #44819
Good video , it changes nothing ……………………this redneck will be armed , no matter what the law is , no matter what the government says .
As will this danged Yankee.November 4, 2015 at 2:34 pm #44842
I am more familiar with colonial Massachusetts Bay Colony history than any of the other colonies, but given the key role it played in the Revolution and afterwards in the formation of the Constitution, I thought it worth commenting on the term “Militia”. In colonial days each Town had its own militia independent of Mass. Bay Colony control. The men elected their own leaders which was culturally appropriate consistent with the Town Meeting form of govt. that still exists to this day. Leading up to the revolution participation was required for all able bodied men age 16 to 60. Each was required to provide their own rifle and ammo, though if someone was too poor the Town would provide one. Though independent of each other and of Colony control, they did voluntarily coordinate with other militias as was brilliantly evident when the British marched on Lexington and Concord in 1775. The key point here is that all men were considered to be part of the militia and more importantly, the militias were not under Colony/State control in the period leading up to the Revolution. These days the hysterical left tries to equate the term Militia with the modern day National Guard. Back then militias represented the people at a Town level. Now the National Guard represents the govt. at the State level, and increasingly at the Federal level.November 4, 2015 at 3:33 pm #44847
MB wrote “Though independent of each other and of Colony control, they did voluntarily coordinate with other militias as was brilliantly evident when the British marched on Lexington and Concord in 1775. ”
So true , in modern day , that also played out in Ukraine war . Each settlement had its own militia for the protection of the town , In the early stages , they didnt talk to each other that much , coordinate their efforts at first either , and did indeed run into friendly fire once in awhile before identity could be established . None the less , the militias kicked out the regular army in their territories , every time . THis lack of unity in the beginning was unfortunate , because had their been that , that war would have easily been over in a few months , as the regular army was no match for the militias . Order restored and Putin would not have gotten Crimea .The beginning stages there are good for us to look at , as it shows how well militias , and organized armed resistance can work , it also points out the shortcomings of those efforts when communications and cooperation is not established in advance .
The Bundy Ranch standoff , was also an example . The people stood their ground , and the government stood down , rather than escalate it into a full blown civil war , which it most likely would have sparked . This was different from Waco in important aspects , the people were there for a principle , and let it be known as such .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.