He wasnt caught but everyone knew he had guns/was a neo nazi. He wasnt caught because no one cared if he had guns in his car. He didnt shoot anyone because, given the access, the neo nazi still chose not to harm anyone else. I know a few people who, to avoid being drafted for 'nam, went in to sign up on their own and said, I wanna kill gooks. It was well known you often were rejected by expressing such views.
Maybe....but I don't know anyone who was a gun club member. Gun clubs were reserved for the upper crust.
Well thats your perspective on a situation. Maybe he didnt know expressing those kinds of views would get you rejected. Or maybe he did and was just a blow-hard wannabe tough guy. Or maybe he was rejected for some other reason. Or maybe he never really tried to join the Army.
You must not have read the quotes (about 7) in postt 66. You need to click to expand but even the two that show without that have bold text telling that militia did routinely train and practice for defense of the community. One of the quotes did note that state's laws only required it militia to train only four times per year. - This was noted because it was such and exception to the norm. Another of the quotes told what made a militia member a "minute man" - ie only one fifth of the militia were - was being the one fifth most devoted to regular practice. etc. I documented well that what makes a State's militia, in contrast to many men with guns living in the state as US now has, was that they regularly trained and had state appointed leaders who drilled them (in the art of war). You in contrast have provided NO documentation for you OPINION that the militia did not regularly train but were like what the US has today - disorganized men with arms that could be called upon when needed to defend their community. Also note, as I learned reading the 7 or so quotes, telling that militia trained regularly that typically the member were simple people, usually farmers, but the state always supplied their leaders - probably the better educated elite members of the communities, to train and instruct them.
The National Guard is a state function and does NOT supersede the Rights Given to The People in the constitution. Second Amendment 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. Third Amendment No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. As has been pointed out to you, the guns of the Nat. Guard are weapons owned by the State. The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall not be infringed.
Well I'm sure they may have wanted you to believe that, but being a racist won't get you out of military service in the Army....especially at that time. If one could get out of military services by repeating a few racist lines in front of an Army recruiter all those many young men who became fugitives from justices by fleeing to Canada were fools. Almost 600,000 American men fled the country to avoid the Vietnam draft. Where if what you claim were true, they could have just recited a few racist lines in front of a recruiter and would have avoided becoming a fugitive of justice and the need to flee the country and live in exile. The Army doesn't mind racists in their ranks as long as they obey orders and keep their noses clean. What they do mind are folk who join organizations who advocate for the violent overthrow of the US government (e.g. neo-Nazis movement).
The 2nd Amendment is rather vaguely written. Your interpretation appears to be the most popular interpretation, but it could be read either way. The ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment is why there has been so much debate about its meaning over the years.
So now you are claiming your friend wanted to join the military to overthrow the gov of the usa, and told them thats why he was joining. lol I do not believe you. And those who fled to avoid the draft were not going in and getting REJECTED prior to being drafted. Big difference. And it didnt always work. And I did not specify Army or Navy or Marines or Air force. And they talked about why they were rejected as they were shocked. Shocked that wanting to kill people got you rejected!
Ah no. What I said was the Army at that time would not enlist people who were or had been members of organizations which advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. So if you were a neo-Nazi or a communist, that was not something the military would tolerate. That isn't surprising. You believe many things which are true to be untrue, and many things that aren't true to be true. That isn't surprising. It's unfortunately to be expected with you. It's your modus operandi. Unlike you, I actually served in the military. I actually went through the enlistment process and I actually served in the military. Did I say they were? Did I even hint that was the case? No I didn't. Once again for your edification, what I did say was that instead of fleeing the country and becoming fugitives of justice, the nearly 600,000 men who fled the country in order to avoid the draft and serving in Vietnam, if what you claim were true, they could have just recited a few racist lines if front of the recruiter and been rejected. And if that were the case there would have been no need to flee the country. Your claim that citing a few racist lines in front of a recruiter was a popular meme among white men at the time, probably made popular by a song (i.e. Alice's Restaurant), but it wasn't true. I know because I am a white man who lived through that period of time and actually went through the enlistment process and served in military during that period. Oh, so now it didn't always work. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It never worked. Military regulations and entrance requirements are written down and well defined with little room for discretion. No you didn't specify Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force. But it doesn't make any difference. Membership in any organization which advocated the violent overthrow of the US government would have disqualified any enlistee from service in any branch of the US military. I only mentioned the Army because the Army had and has historically had the lowest and easiest entrance standards of any of the military branches.
I already quoted several sources proving it to be the militia of the United States. Let's go over this again shall we? "The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of theDistrict of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government." "Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are: The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked."==https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) "The organized militia is the armed forces of the state. Each state has two mandatory forces which are: the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces. National Guard The National Guard (or National Guard of a State) differs from the National Guard of the United States; however, the two do go hand-in-hand. The National Guard is a militia force organized by each of the states and territories of the United States. Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[37] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 54 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial government.[38] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[38] Right..the militia as we know it today precisely has nothing to do with the people bearing arms as we now, as a wealthy govt, can afford to arm and train our own militia unlike the early colonial days. So what does that do to your argument that that is the reason why people need to bear arms? It effectively demolishes it. The people don't have to bear arms anymore to maintain a militia. Such a requirement simply doesn't exist anymore. And nobody owns guns in the anticipation of being called up into some hoaky militia composed of farmer Billy Bob and his 15 cousins. It simply doesn't exist. There is no list of phone numbers, no training, not even any meetings of this so called militia. So spare us the worn out excuse that gun owners are somehow invested with the responsibility of defending america from invading forces with their guns, because they're not. We have a real militia now, and it's called the National Guard. I'll make it clearer for you. The Constitution doesn't mention alot of things that didn't exist yet. And some things it mentions have changed their meaning. This is the nature of all historical documents. So you pointing out that the National Guard isn't mentioned in the Constitution is rather pointless see, as we know many legit govt entities exist now that also weren't mentioned in the Constitution. BTW, I checked the dictionary definition of militia. It perfectly matches the National Guard: "militia: a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies."===http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia
Yeah, I know what you said. yawn. modius operendi. ad hominem. Never said it always worked. Said it happened to some people I know. Happened to everyone of them who wanted to go to nam to kill gooks and told the recruiter that was why they were volunteering that I knew. Never claimed to know everyone who signed up during nam. Dont know anyone personally that headed for canada at that time either. Know some who thought they would have if their draft number had been called. Dont give a shit if you joined the navy while your friend tried to join the Army. But I dont believe he was rejected for wanting to overthrow the government. I dont believe he told them that. I think he was rejected because he wanted to kill people. Like I said happened to people I know. Theres much of your story that doesnt fully make sense to me, such as guns in his car at school and never getting caught, But Supposedly telling a recruiter he wanted to join the army to overthrow the government...
Good, then you shouldn't make a straw man out of it. Ah, no, it's just the truth, nothing more, nothing less. You believe things which are demonstrably untrue to be true and thing which are true you believe to be false. You never said it always worked...? Well you didn't use the word "always". But you did say all that was needed to avoid conscription was to utter a few racist words. And that isn't at all true. Since you were not present when these racist declarations were made, you don't know what happened. You don't know for a fact why, or even if those folks to whom you refer were denied entry into military service. What you allegedly know is what they told you. It's not uncommon for people who have been rejected to lie about the reasons for their rejection. I know you don't care about my military service. You don't need evidence or reason. As demonstrated over time, you have repeatedly let your belief trump fact and reason over and over again. That's the modius operendi thingy. The neo-Nazi guy wanted to join the Army and he wasn't my friend. My friend joined the Marines. Well, actually, you had previously said "they" were rejected for making racist comments. Now you are saying he was rejected for wanting to kill people. Hmm, do you know what the military does? I'll give you a clue, they don't play hopscotch with the enemy. They kill people, more specifically they kill the enemy. It's what happens in war. Having undergone the military entrance exams, I can tell you what it was like. I took a number of written and medical tests in order to assess my intelligence, aptitudes, and physical abilities. But here was no psychiatric screening. But of course the military would reject someone if they were found to be mentally ill or subsequently suffered a permanent medical disability. If they were mentally ill, presumably that would become apparent under the the stress of basic training and if you get kicked out prior to finishing Boot, you don't receive any benefits afforded veterans. Additionally, as I previously said, the neo-Nazi guy brought guns to school in the trunk of his car. Now if you find that difficult to believe, so be it. But it won't change history. It won't change what happened? Where you not the guy who just a few posts ago said when you were young people routinely brought guns to school? Now you find it difficult to believe? OK. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Did I ever say someone told a recruiter he wanted to join the military to overthrow the government? Perhaps you can point to that text? Then again that would be very difficult since I never said or even suggest that. You are constructing another fallacious argument, a straw man. What I did write, was that when I entered the military, there was a list of forbidden organizations which if I were a member of or had any affiliation with, I and anyone else who had those affiliations, would have been denied entry into the US military. Because those forbidden organizations advocated for the violent overthrow of the US government. And neo-Nazi organizations were on that list, which posed a problem for the neo-Nazi guy I referenced because he wanted to join the Army. I know this because I worked with the neo-Nazi guy at a grocery store while attending high school. Well that is not apparent based on your commentary. What, you need to get some sleep? Two, modius operendi isn't ad hominem. It just a fact.
It was not until 1986 that then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger issued a directive requiring everyone in the military to “reject participation in white supremacy, neo-Nazi, and other such groups which espouse or attempt to create overt discrimination.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-military-matt-kennard-s-irregular-army.html BECAUSE JOE WHINED --too many quotes makes for hard reading. CrybabyJOE said: Did I ever say someone told a recruiter he wanted to join the military to overthrow the government? Perhaps you can point to that text? And I still do not believe he was rejected because of neo nazi beliefs, which is totally removed from joining an org who advocates ...blah blah blah. I do not believe your version of events. And finally, I didnt say it was the racism of their comments that got them rejected from joining during 'nam. You assumed that. No one really gave a shit if they were/were not racist. What bothered the Armed services was their wanting to kill people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_on_Hill_192 So I am done with you.
You don't appear to be able to understand the difference between a subversive organization and a racist organization. As repeatedly stated in this thread, when I entered military service in 1972, I had to sign a statement denying any affiliation with organizations which were identified as subversive, and the Nazi Party was one of those subversive organizations. What Weinberger did was to add racist organizations to the list. And he went further, much further, the only ones screened during my time in services were enlistees, at the time of enlistment, and those who sought an enhanced security clearance. Weinberger expanded it to include anyone on the military, not just at enlistment or while seeking a security clearance. Read it and weep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10450 As repeatedly pointed out to you, in 1972 the military didn't care if enlistees were racist. They did care if enlistees were affiliated with organizations which had been identified as subversive (e.g. Nazi Party). YOU ARE FALSELY CREDITING SOMETHING I WROTE TO YOU TO YOU. THAT'S CALLED PLAGIARISM. THAT'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. Yeah you did. You said the act of making a specific racist comment was grounds for rejection. And it wasn't. As previously pointed out to you, if that were the case it would have been really easy for the nearly 600k young men who fled the country in order to avoid the draft and service in Vietnam to remain in this country while avoiding the draft and avoiding service in Vietnam. They wouldn't have needed to flee the country and become fugitives from justice and seek political asylum in Canada. Killing people, killing the enemy is what the military does. And as I have repeatedly written here, at that time the military didn't much care if members were racists as long as they did their jobs. But the military did mind if service members were affiliated with subversive organizations like the Nazi and Communist Party. And how is that even remotely relevant to your cause? It isn't. LOL, oh good, you told me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, it is. Read the damn poll - it matches categories right down the line. So the issue here is: what is it about this gun issue that interferes with simple thinking, reading comprehension, that kind of stuff? You just posted a link to the total number of guns owned in the US. You did not post anything about how this ownership is distributed. I made a claim about how it is distributed. It went like this: Most people in the US own no firearms (you can see that in your second, Vox, link, btw) ; of those that own firearms, a majority own one or two. Now while this claim could be wrong, a link to a news report about the total number of guns in the US doesn't show that. It's all but irrelevant, in fact. Yet you seem to think it's evidence against my claim. You are insistent, insulting, imperative on the point. And this is just another in a whole string of such posting from you. Like this: And I repeatedly provided it - as again, right there. So we see a clarification (of what was already clear to anyone reading in good faith, for meaning), and the response to that clarification is the same as it was to earlier rephrasings and rewordings and expansions (the stuff that honest people find clarifying): that the clarifying post makes no sense, and I need to provide "clarification". The reason it makes no sense to you guys is that it conflicts with your boneheaded misreading of the original - which was itself a kind of clarification or expansion of a point made earlier, and misread then. I can't "clarify" in any way that agrees with your misreading. And you deny comprehension of anything that doesn't - three times now explicitly ("not making sense"). By appearances, you still don't know what it is. Look at this: This kind of abusive stupidity is impossible to reason with. I've pointed out that you misread that. I've posted several rephrasings and expansions and clarifications, so you can join the argument and participate in discussion. And you will not. And - key - you are not alone here in this pattern. It's factional. It's seen on "both sides". So what is the problem? Why is gun control uniquely afflicted like this? This stuff is not that complicated. My posts are not that hard to figure out. The arguments are basically simple. The realities are not hidden. And look at this thread. There is a serious thinking disorder kicking in here, on the side that in most issues is the one bringing the sanity and the facts. And it has ruined the discussion of gun control, not only here but in the US realm of public discourse generally. We have a "both sides crazy" situation, and the reasonable folks cannot stand in the rip. Hence my recommendation: to reduce gun violence in the US choose another way in, an issue on the table and actually open to discussion and beneficial change, one that offers a way to do that. Approach gun violence reduction from some other direction, in some other way, via some other issue, than gun control. So given the thread title, at least one poster has advanced a list of such issues that seem usable. This is a discussion forum, no?
You quoted sources naming the modern National Guard a militia. I quoted a riddle credited to Lincoln about the effect of naming a tail a leg. You can find a lot of crap on the internet. The governments of the time could afford to field military forces. These forces were called "armies", and when people were talking about the military forces armed and trained by wealthy State and Central governments they did not use the word "militia", because that is not the right word. Militia as the literate and well-educated and personally experienced writers of the Constitution knew them often required that people bring their own weapons when called into service. Hence the 2nd Amendment language. And you repeating that silly claim does not endow it with meaning or sense. Why don't you try quoting whatever I posted that you are having trouble understanding - give me a chance to figure out what you are talking about. Nothing you post is going to convert the National Guard into a militia. I listed the distinguishing characteristics above. But let's take a look: Even your inadequate online dictionary does better than that, if you don't cherrypick: 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typicallyregarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against thepresumed interference of the federal government. - - - - a body of citizen (as opposed to professional) soldiers 2. an organization containing men enlisted for service in emergency only - - - - Ands this one in particular, because of its direct bearing on the Constitution of the US (note the date): In U.S.history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not"(1777). That last definition matches the descriptions we get from the towns and counties and frontier communities of early America - usually, all able bodied grown men were in the militia. You appear to be reading too much into those quotes - it is not true that the State always, or even very often, provided leaders, for example (consider that States did not exist in the critical period at issue). Here is a link to a list of the militia formed to join battle in the Revolutionary War on the Patriot side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_militia_units_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War Note in particular the formation dates. Clearly very few of these could possibly have been in regular training with State supplied leaders etc, the kinds of militia you describe - they didn't have time. They were raised in response to the immediate need. Notice as well that they were often formed around - and named after - a particular citizen leader, much as the Red communities they lived near organized their war parties around a respected and experienced commander. And we know by contemporary account that they were formed at need from the willing citizenry, usually all adult males were in the militia and eligible to respond to call at will, they brought their own weapons and other gear (we know this from accounts, and because some carried the newly invented and domestic peasant rifles, rather than the often imported muskets given to the regular Army, etc.). I got interested in the topic of whether any of the early American militia were standing forces seriously trained (because of its implications for the issue of a standing Army in the US) and posted a better link for you, in post 83, - - But note this complication in the historical record: In other words, there were even then State military forces, regular army and not militia. The Constitution specifically refers to militia, and that's where the private firearm comes in.
"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat.775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,[1] was legislation enacted by the United States Congress which codified the circumstances under which the National Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to the National Guard to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. In return, the National Guard began to organize its units along the same lines as the regular Army, and took steps to meet the same training, education and readiness requirements as active duty units."====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Right..we went over this already. Back in 1777 that was the definition of militia because the govt couldn't afford arming and training all those civilians. But nowadays see we have a well-regulated militia called the National Guard that IS trained and supplied with arms. Nobody expects men and boys to be called into military service with their shotguns and pistols to defend the nation from terrorists and invaders. I grew up in America. All my life I never had a gun nor knew how to shoot one. Noone called me or notified me by mail that I was part of some militia who needs to be ready with a gun to be called into service. It doesn't exist. It existed back in 1777, but not anymore. I assume you have a gun. Does this mean you are part of the militia? Will you be using your gun to shoot at invaders with their automatic rifles? Seriously? Good luck with that!
