Basically a nicer way of saying "homegrown terrorism"
Thanks for MHO :)
Opinion
10Opinion
m I guess one way to look at it, should the US ban non US nationals from forming paramilitary groups. Assuming they pass requirements https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms#:~:text=An%20alien%20legally%20in%20the,valid%20hunting%20license%20or%20permit.
how would people feel if these expanded?
It’s hard having a paramilitary group without firearms. Maybe axes n shields. Would you accept non us nationals forming their own paramilitary groups
@rebelinsteel I don't see how such a rule could be enforced against a dangerous foreign national without it being easier to simply deport them. As such it is wasted effort and resources in a constitutionally questionable goal.
Mexico is asking for this because they think they can somehow disarm the cartels. If individuals can manufacture their own weapons in their basements. Cartels which control vast areas of Mexico would have no problem building an almost anything they want even if they didn't have the money to buy it from anywhere on earth.
Mexico needs to control the territory to deny operating space to the cartel.
@monorprise so you are going to deport green card holders? I never said illegals I said non us citizens/ nationals.
@rebelinsteel I am aware of the distinction, and am I'm against gun control in general. I am merely saying its easier to get rid of the 'dangerous' foreign national than to try and control what they do, particularly for a Government in Washington's distantly unaccountable position.
I would resend or not renew a green-card before deporting them.
@monorprise then I would guess you would hit the same employment and right to live as ITAR and other Green Card rights. There are plenty green card holders in the US military. Anyone expecting a body of people to support the government or stand against them, needs to consider the 3rd option of a hostile group or groups active in the US. Number of Russians, Chinese, even the religious side of say Muslims forming groups. These things are often not how one side views them.
The opposite, rather.
With some catchy propaganda, ''we'' then can make them kill each other. This will save tax money that then can go into military investment to kill some outsiders (a sufficient number of foreign candidates is at hand),
U. S. culture is basically aggressive - to force citizens to act against their nature will only lead to non-directed chaos and profit losses for the rich.
A paramilitary is an organization whose structure, tactics, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not part of a country's official or legitimate armed forces. Paramilitary units carry out duties that a country's military or police forces are unable or unwilling to handle. Other organizations may be considered paramilitaries by structure alone, despite being unarmed or lacking a combat role.
So the ATF or FBI.
@goaded was the Gestapo, SA & SS the police or a Paramilitary organisation? All had roles of law enforcement, domestic intelligence and were armed with military weapons and trained in military tactics.
List of US Government Paramilitary organisations.
CIA Special Activities Center, Special Operations Group
ATF
DOE Federal Protective Forces
DOE Office of Secure Transportation
FBI
United States Marshals Service
National Lancers
upload.wikimedia.org/.../..._%2816325263567%29.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...escue_Team_members.jpg
@goaded Much like the Gestapo's power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the power to label anyone a domestic terrorist. Much like the Gestapo infiltrated communities in order to spy on the German citizenry, the FBI routinely infiltrates political and religious groups, as well as businesses.
Probably about as totalitarian and unconstitutional as you can get. There is a reason both the American and Texas Revolution started when the goverment tried to do this. And why we created a 2nd amendment.
@msc545
So your willing to abandon the constitution, and any real right to defend yourself from anyone who has already decided to violate the law including authoritarian politicians just because you don't like looking at a irresponsible guy carrying a weapon?
Wow, you have terrible judgement thinking the state law is soo perfectly binding, no wonder the people you elect reduce your regions to miserly.
Perhaps when a real thug who has already decided to violate the law comes around with their illegal weapon and has their way with you. You might finally realize you were an idiot to think criminals follow the law.
That's why if you ever do get your way, our half of the country is likely to be leaving you to your own poorly chosen and largely unaccountable leader's tender mercy's.
The way you feel is your own personal problem @msc545
I don't feel the need to be intimidated by weapons at all.
@msc545
People being intimidated by weapons is their problem, you get use to it when you see a lot of them, as you more commonly do in places like Texas.
As it happens while no doubt some kids do dress to shock others most people carry their weapons openly simply because they are too large to hide hide comfortably.
Its not our job to address your or anyone else's feelings, it is our job to provide for our own defense and the defense of our families in an ever more dangerous world.
We don't all live in towns where cops are seconds away, nor can we all afford to hire armed security guards to do the job for us.
If other people can't deal with that there are counselor available.
@msc545 Yes indeed, A real problem is what people do to you, not how you feel about how they look.
If you want to be obsessed with how people look go live among people who share your point of view. In a federal system there should be room for local & state laws to accommodate such desires but never federal.
You forget the fact that people's reactions or in your language. I suppose feelings often lead to actions. In this case historically, these actions have been very unfortunate. Knowing that, we would want to prevent such actions in the future by addressing the cause, which in this case is your need to play soldier and carry weapons openly in public when there is no real need to do so.
And before you go off on a tangent and start telling me how important it is, please understand that almost nobody is interested in catering to your paranoid's fantasies.
@msc545
Paranoid fantasies... If your going to tell me the way someone looks is responsible for other people to do anything i would call that a paranoid fantasy that rejects personal accountability and free will. This of course is what the foundations of our civil sociality is built upon, there is after all no point in any law if men are not responsible for their own actions.
Since you seem disinterested in a speech I presume you've been given about the importance of a free people retaining the means of self-defense. I will simply point out the fact that soo many are soo freqnely robed, abused, or killed without said means as rather proof that it is neither paranoid nor a fanicy. But rather a real life reflection of the practical reality that a public security guard known as cops cannot be everywhere at once least of all in more rural places.
No, I'm just interested in your self-serving rationale for why it is that you think you should be allowed to walk around in public displaying a deadly weapon. I think that you and I both know that if you want to carry a weapon it's fairly easy to carry a concealed one and I don't have a problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is the perverse idea that you are somehow better off displaying a somewhat larger weapon solely for the purpose of annoying and intimidating others. That isn't okay. It is a threatening thing for many people and threatening people is a bad idea.
@msc545
Although i would not concede it is easy enough for everyone to carry a concealed weapon given what people happen to own, need, or are able to use is not physically small enough to conceal on all people.
We can put that issue aside as we are not really discussing whether or not someone can do but rather or not as a matter of general principle they should, rather than everyone in simply learning to deal with the world as adults responsible for their own actions.
I contend the ladder is necessary for mere functioning in a free county because the what can upset and offend someone is not fixed to any particular look, action, or object but depended upon their relative experience.
As such trying to force everyone to avoid 'triggering' any particular set of people is a theoretically and apparently practically impossible task. Even if you could remove such elements from the environment around them, no matter what you remove there will always be something else because that is how humans are designed with the full range of emotions based upon the world we experience.
@msc545 The point is your trying to control a problem with people wanting to avoid confronting things they are uncomfortable with outside of their experience. When in fact that is impossible and you should be training them to deal with the unexpected as adults.
@msc545
Demanding other people undermine their own and their family's safety just to avoid learning how to identify a threat property is not getting along.
Its asking for conflict both because you are miss-identifying threat and because your posing a threat to someone else.
This is NOT getting along, this is a fight waiting to happen.
Leftoids will simultaneously bitch about the 2A and their dumb shit reading of a well regulated militia, all the while trying to make their dream militias illegal. But not to worry, they'll keep moving the goalpost further still in a push to fascism, one slippery slope at a time.
Of course, when the left seek to ban your speech, take away your arms, freedom of movement, protest and association it's actually quite libertarian.
Ah yes, sure, let's play. Which speech is the right trying to ban?
Reference?
I don't, and until I get a reference I'm just gonna think everything you claim is bullshit.
Many states already ban them, but few enforce the bans.
"the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power" https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/constitution-of-the-state-of-vermont/
I think that depends on how they define a paramilitary group.
That said, I suspect a ban would unconstitutional.
The second ammendment allows for a well armed militia. This is just another way democrats want to make citizens powerless.
You're making the word "government" do a lot of heavy lifting, there. Democratically elected state governments could, theoretically, raise a militia against a tyrannical federal government (albeit not if federal elections are still being held), but the militia would be under the control of the state government.
Yeah we've seen how well this militia thing works out. You get idiots dressed in surplus military clothes and carrying visually impressive and technically unimpressive stupid weapons for the purpose of intimidating others. These people serve no useful purpose whatsoever and sometimes they can get out of hand and create public disturbances that Police have to deal with instead of dealing with real criminals. These groups should not exist.
@ i always thought in those terms until recently. I feel that the police can no longer protect my home and family. Ant I do nor trust the courts to impose justice on criminals. They release them because they are not criminals but simply oppressed. I see the abuse of power in the weapobized DOJ and we are watching unfolding in real time a government organization working against local law enforcement that is trying to protect citizens by allowing criminals free run of their sovereign land.
Fortunately it hasn't happened yet but I can see the erosion of the fabric of our society. Once a neighborhood starts to turn it never comes back. A couple of houses on my street were bought by an LLC and they are renting them out. The house next door was broken into while I was recovering from a hip replacement. If it was my hoius ethat was broken into I would have been in no shape to fight them. For the first time in my life I felt unsafe in my house.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I feel "Once a neighborhood starts to turn it never comes back." is missing a word in the middle, to make it rhyme.
Was anybody in the house next door when it was broken into? No? Then what good would having a gun in the house have been, other than to arm a burglar?
Do you support legislation to ban companies from owning private houses? (There's some being introduced at the moment.)
@goaded My grandparents lived in a nice neighborhood in the city. They lived at the top of a hill. My uncle who is in the real estate business noticed that the property at the bottom of the hill was looking run down. There was graffiti and there was a playground that was vandalized. It looked like the cancer was moving up the hill. He told my grand parents they should move before the house lost its value. They had lived there for 40 years and did not want to lose their home. Fast forward ten years. They had both passed away and I had to help my father sell the place. It was a great big two family house. It was well maintained as well. The only one that was interested in buying it was the city. They would use it for Section 8 housing. We got 12,900 dollars for it. A fraction of what it was worth ten years earlier
@msc545 Yes. but historically real estate always increase in value. I had the opportunity to drive by the old homestead a few years ago. There was a big retaining wall my father and his brothers built. Retaining wall had been torn down in one place so the new resident could drive a motorcycle up on the front lawn. The rocks and dirt still laid on the ground. The place looked like it was rundown with crappy vinyl sideing that was falling off in places. The rest of the neighborhood looks just as bad.
How exactly would they define a paramilitary group?
They are our first line of defense against a rogue Government.
They will do like the colonists did to the redcoats. Hide behind trees or rocks and ambush them, or use guerilla warfare. Worked for the Vietnamese.
We do have forests and lots of walls and buildings. I think a lot of soldiers would desert if told to kill their neighbors.
Speaking of this kind of thing, I just read that some idiot organized in March on the border too. Supposedly take back the border. The March consists of large groups of thugs similar to the ones that decided to take the capital on January 6th.
We all know how well that worked out for them. This should probably work out about the same or worse possibly. It's this kind of thing that led me to post this question.
Laws like this justify people’s suspicions that the government is up to no good. The government has nothing to fear from armed citizens…if it’s doing its job.
I think most people in this country now agree that the government no longer really works for us regardless of political affiliation. I haven’t checked recently, but last I recall, literally only 20-25% of people surveyed thought the government was doing a good job. Furthermore, militias are covered under the assembly clause of Amendment 1, and are implied in Amendment 2.
I have more faith in them than I do in pulling a lever once every four years to choose one of two equally corrupt rich people. Although that’s a pretty low bar…
Because there is an enormous and extremely well financed, all encompassing propaganda machine that beams 24/7 bullshit to hundreds of millions of people around the country. That’s why you have people on here literally thinking that Trump is, “chosen by god” or that Joe Biden being unable to form sentences is, “nothing to be worried about.” I alone do not have the power to appoint politicians. I alone don’t have enough voice to reach millions of people who are glued to TVs, computers, papers, etc.
If that were the case then said propaganda machine wouldn’t run massive campaigns to try and keep faith in democracy. Campaigns designed to encourage people to participate in elections. Routine fearmongering campaigns telling people, “this is the most important election ever.” I’d like to see a single major media outlet saying, “stop voting and stop believing in this system.” Let’s see an example.
Maybe.
I agree. If things have gotten to the point where I and plenty of others consider that as a possible alternative.
Well, I disagree with your opinion.
Nope.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions