Military assesment shows caravan not a threat but unregulated malitias are

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
That's bullshit. You don't like my political position so all you have is to cry a lie about racism. Where or when have I ever called for the restriction of rights based on the color of anyone's skin? Never, so get over yourself.
- You support Trump, you are a republican, conservative, thus behind the extensive voter suppression campaigns throughout.
Or you could just take a stance against it right here right now of course? How about that new ad? Denounce that one yet? Yea until you do, you are in the bucket of racists,like it or not.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
"regulation" doesnt necessarily mean a higher authority. I know cuz I served for 9 years and sometimes we were well-regulated and sometimes we were well-led, but not always both.

Of course it does. All military units in this country are under civilian command, either to state governors as national guard or to the President. Historically, militias were under command of state governors. To my knowledge, none have issued orders for deployment to the border.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Just show me in your link where it says the "caravan is not a threat". I'll wait.

Don't worry...Once they come storming across the Rio Grande brandishing the toddlers they're bringing with them as weapons... They might besiege Dallas, but..as they move north, they'll weaken in the winter snows and we'll have 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
What part of "well regulated" are you having a problem with? The states have a well regulated militia, they are called the national guard.

Remember when the federal government used to put down rebellions and insurrections? I bet you didn't realize that stopping such things are actually a constitutional requirement.


You are just as bad as Trump with his "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14 amendment that he wants changed.

First since the national guard can be activated at any time by the president for whatever war or military action he deems necessary (regardless of what the state or governor thinks) and is under the jurisdiction of the standing active military its role as the militia is nebulous at best.

https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-the-second-amendment-the-framers-intentions
"
What Was the Purpose of the Second Amendment?
The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army. As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State." This was because a militia, so regulated, might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
I shouldn't be living in abject terror of being slaughtered by little Hispanic kids wearing Dora the Explorer backpacks? That doesn't sound right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I shouldn't be living in abject terror of being slaughtered by little Hispanic kids wearing Dora the Explorer backpacks? That doesn't sound right.

The most terrifying part for the right wing is that their miscegenated grandchildren might have Spanish surnames. The horror!
 

Stokely

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,224
2,994
136
With any luck, some of these militias full of "patriots" will wander over where the caravans are and the military will mistake them for Mexican rapist terrorist-hiding gang members.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
With any luck, some of these militias full of "patriots" will wander over where the caravans are and the military will mistake them for Mexican rapist terrorist-hiding gang members.

They're fucking wahoos of the Bundyite persuasion who have no business being there at all.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Of course it does. All military units in this country are under civilian command, either to state governors as national guard or to the President. Historically, militias were under command of state governors. To my knowledge, none have issued orders for deployment to the border.

There is no SCOTUS ruling that I am aware of that "militias" are entirely government-controlled entities. They are subject to laws, however, they are not subject to command and this is why they exist as they are, not what one might like them to be. I think they are bizarre, but they can lawfully exist and "regulation" is not stated in the Constitution as "government regulated".

I may not care for them but as long as they don't break the law they have a right to be.

The proper way to resolve the issue you have would be to petition someone with standing and if they agree with you then bring up a challenge in court, which may or may not make it to the SCOTUS, which may or may not give you what you want.

That's how things are supposed to work, no EO or equivalent taking the place of courts.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You are just as bad as Trump with his "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14 amendment that he wants changed.

First since the national guard can be activated at any time by the president for whatever war or military action he deems necessary (regardless of what the state or governor thinks) and is under the jurisdiction of the standing active military its role as the militia is nebulous at best.

https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-the-second-amendment-the-framers-intentions
"
What Was the Purpose of the Second Amendment?
The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army. As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State." This was because a militia, so regulated, might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

Your understanding is poor. Early rebellions in this country were both fomented & suppressed by militias. Read up, particularly about Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion & the rest-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_United_States
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
They're fucking wahoos of the Bundyite persuasion who have no business being there at all.

Don't go full Trump, it's not a good look. Whether they have "business" is secondary to the right to be there. At this point in time, they do unless they violate laws or interfere with lawful acts. As I've said I don't care for them but I'm not for being some dictator assuming authority over the rule of law.

Naturally, if they step an inch over the line then "lock 'em up".
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
In another episode of Trump lies, spouts bullshit and the dummies believe him, the made up stories of the caravan have been exposed by own military. The military in their own report say the immigrants are not the threat but gun totin' nutters who have been primed to show up to the border are.





Inside the document based on past history 20% of the caravan will make it to the border. That means Trump is sending 15,000 troops to "protect" us from 1400 unarmed people, many of them children

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1196855

edited that last bit. :D
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's even spelled right.

Imagine, the entirety of a country and all of its liberties based on a single sentence! Our constitution is da best!

You brainless conservatives wouldn't recognize an amendment if it smacked you in the face and died in your mouth.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
There is no SCOTUS ruling that I am aware of that "militias" are entirely government-controlled entities. They are subject to laws, however, they are not subject to command and this is why they exist as they are, not what one might like them to be. I think they are bizarre, but they can lawfully exist and "regulation" is not stated in the Constitution as "government regulated".

I may not care for them but as long as they don't break the law they have a right to be.

The proper way to resolve the issue you have would be to petition someone with standing and if they agree with you then bring up a challenge in court, which may or may not make it to the SCOTUS, which may or may not give you what you want.

That's how things are supposed to work, no EO or equivalent taking the place of courts.

They can call themselves militias if they want. It's the realm of right wing nutbars & hopeless romantics, after all. The whole notion is 150 years out of date. Back then, they had militias standing against each other in several rebellions as a consequence of weak civilian govt.

We need that today not at all.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
They can call themselves militias if they want. It's the realm of right wing nutbars & hopeless romantics, after all. The whole notion is 150 years out of date. Back then, they had militias standing against each other in several rebellions as a consequence of weak civilian govt.

We need that today not at all.

I'm not disagreeing- at all, but we bitch and rightfully so about people who disregard the law and the meaning of the rule of law because it suits their sensibilities. There are times where I accept what I do not want because at this time there is no lawful alternative other than what I have outlined. Lawful demonstrations and petitions, elections of those we believe to be more aligned with our beliefs and other similar actions.

I think you get that and I understand you're being unhappy with foolishness and a slow process. For now we tolerate but hold these people accountable for every action beyond that to which they are lawfully entitled.
 

ElMonoDelMar

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,163
338
136
I think you get that and I understand you're being unhappy with foolishness and a slow process. For now we tolerate but hold these people accountable for every action beyond that to which they are lawfully entitled.

The problem is that the militias are not held accountable for their actions. Remember when those dumb dicks we're pointing guns at federal law enforcement officers during the whole Bundy fiasco? How many of them were ever prosecuted for that?
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,580
3,059
136
Maddow said 15,000 troops being sent to the border is more than we have in Afghanistan. I guess those poor, tired brown people to our south are a bigger threat than armed, trained insurgents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
The problem is that the militias are not held accountable for their actions. Remember when those dumb dicks we're pointing guns at federal law enforcement officers during the whole Bundy fiasco? How many of them were ever prosecuted for that?

I think they tried?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The problem is that the militias are not held accountable for their actions. Remember when those dumb dicks we're pointing guns at federal law enforcement officers during the whole Bundy fiasco? How many of them were ever prosecuted for that?

That was nuts. Their actions seem to match the definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act, and yet someone managed to have anything serious levied against them. I suspect that wasn't as much a matter of law and enforcement as politics behind the scene.
 

ElMonoDelMar

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,163
338
136
It's sad. Imagine if an "urban youth" were to do the same thing. The medical examiner would need to collect his remains with a shop vac and brass/lead futures would shoot through the roof.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Your choice of words, "in your link", is quite specific and utterly irrelevant so perhaps you have seen this?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ing-for-the-usa.2555395/page-24#post-39633911

My link is to the military threat assessment which dismisses all but the most bizarre defense of what constitutes a threat. It is possible that someone may skin a knee, but in terms of "invasion"? There isn't one. The people who know better than you or Trump have looked at this, not from a political perspective but a reality-based one.

HTH.
It's in his OP and can't be backed up. I can't comment about other threads I didn't participate in, it's not allowed.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
I'm not going racism but I wonder about this "well-regulated militia" thing. Per the report the greatest threat of wrongdoing isn't the Caravan but militias going after US military equipment. Seems like these self-deluded "well regulated" militias in question should land in prison.
Lock em up!! Don't you think you should at least wait until the "militias" break a law before you start screaming for prison?