|
Post by moose1am on Sept 5, 2020 16:58:58 GMT -5
I saw at least 40 Armed Black men marching 4 abreast down the street in Louisville, KY carrying weapons like AR15s and handguns. I bet that they are going to clash with Anti Protestors also carrying arms today. These black men are wearing all black clothing and seem to have been trained to march in line. There are at least 10 rows of 4 abreast. I'm not sure the founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the US Constitution. I think all He(( is about to break loose pretty soon in Louisville, KY.
These are not State Trained Militia or National Guard troops. In fact if the Governor does not deploy very well trained KY National Guard troops this could be one for the history books and it won't be pretty.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Sept 5, 2020 17:42:45 GMT -5
What about all this suggest Louisville is going to errupt in violence? This group has already protested there at least once. Besides needing to learn a little firearms safety and poor hydration techniques it was uneventful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 3:27:16 GMT -5
What about all this suggest Louisville is going to errupt in violence? This group has already protested there at least once. Besides needing to learn a little firearms safety and poor hydration techniques it was uneventful. Was this the group where a female militia member shot at least one other militia member?
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Sept 6, 2020 6:32:20 GMT -5
What about all this suggest Louisville is going to errupt in violence? This group has already protested there at least once. Besides needing to learn a little firearms safety and poor hydration techniques it was uneventful. Was this the group where a female militia member shot at least one other militia member? Its the NFAC (black militia) group. Last time they protested someone passed out from the heat and had a ND striking 3 members of the same group.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 6, 2020 7:37:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Sept 6, 2020 7:40:44 GMT -5
From what I can tell by reading the local TV station sites, there weren’t any significant problems, but the potential was certainly there. This is all about the Breonna Taylor shooting by LMPD. You can do your own research if interested. The white mayor (D) and black state attorney general (R) are being tight-lipped and not releasing any details of the investigation. I have a hunch that this will get much worse before it gets better.
Moose - Were you in downtown Louisville? If so, how did it look? I’m only ten minutes away, but haven’t been in the actual business district in at least six months. I’ve heard that it is a boarded up dump. The virus shut down combined with vandalism has caused a good number of restaurants and retail businesses to either close or relocate.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 6, 2020 9:43:06 GMT -5
From what I can tell by reading the local TV station sites, there weren’t any significant problems, but the potential was certainly there. This is all about the Breonna Taylor shooting by LMPD. You can do your own research if interested. The white mayor (D) and black state attorney general (R) are being tight-lipped and not releasing any details of the investigation. I have a hunch that this will get much worse before it gets better. Moose - Were you in downtown Louisville? If so, how did it look? I’m only ten minutes away, but haven’t been in the actual business district in at least six months. I’ve heard that it is a boarded up dump. The virus shut down combined with vandalism has caused a good number of restaurants and retail businesses to either close or relocate. I was at home watching the news on TV. I had heard about this group before but never saw them before yesterday. I did read where one of their members passed out and discharged his shot gun hitting three other members of the group a while back. When I first saw them on TV yesterday I thought it was the police until the camera zoomed in a little more and I noticed that they were all black men in the group. And they didn't have police on their clothing. I had no idea who they were until reading the posts in here today. When I saw them marching down the street in unison I was fearful. 40 black armed men working together was a scary sight for me. The State Police were there in force and moved in between the two different groups and kept the peace. I'm about 2 hours away from Louisville but have an Aunt and Cousin that lives there. I've been to Louisville, KY many times visiting my Aunt and cousins who have lived there for the last 70 something years. My late father went to Bellarmine University one summer for seminars of some kind. Back then we went to Louisville every weekend that entire summer. We never really went to the downtown area of Louisville, KY. But 25 years ago I went to the downtown area while working across the river Borden, IN for some entertainment. I have a fishing friend that lives in Georgetown, IN and he goes over there all the time. I'll ask him about this the next time I talk to him on the phone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 18:48:45 GMT -5
Was this the group where a female militia member shot at least one other militia member? Its the NFAC (black militia) group. Last time they protested someone passed out from the heat and had a ND striking 3 members of the same group. Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Sept 6, 2020 21:26:39 GMT -5
Its the NFAC (black militia) group. Last time they protested someone passed out from the heat and had a ND striking 3 members of the same group. Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed. "You can't fix stupid" -Ron White
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 8:04:09 GMT -5
Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed. "You can't fix stupid" -Ron White Can`t fix stupid is right...unless a negligent discharge kills them I guess.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 7, 2020 8:25:27 GMT -5
Its the NFAC (black militia) group. Last time they protested someone passed out from the heat and had a ND striking 3 members of the same group. Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed. A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Let's talk about the first part of the 2nd amendment. A Militia shall be regulated is basically what it is saying. When you have 40 armed men marching down the street then to me that is a Militia and the State should regulate that militia. So should it be considered an insurrection by militia or not? Should the State Police disarm these men or make them disperse and keep their arms. It's ok to own a firearms. But there are laws that regulate how we use our arms. For example there is a law against murdering or shooting people except in defense of one's life. Many people are sitting in prison right now on the charge of murder. The states frown on the formation of militias too. But what are the laws about forming armed militias? I read that KY allows people to bear arms like AR15's in public. But what if those same people bearing arms start using them? Is that then a revolution that the State must try to put down?
|
|
|
Post by swetz on Sept 7, 2020 9:03:59 GMT -5
Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed. A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Let's talk about the first part of the 2nd amendment. A Militia shall be regulated is basically what it is saying. When you have 40 armed men marching down the street then to me that is a Militia and the State should regulate that militia. So should it be considered an insurrection by militia or not? Should the State Police disarm these men or make them disperse and keep their arms. It's ok to own a firearms. But there are laws that regulate how we use our arms. For example there is a law against murdering or shooting people except in defense of one's life. Many people are sitting in prison right now on the charge of murder. The states frown on the formation of militias too. But what are the laws about forming armed militias? I read that KY allows people to bear arms like AR15's in public. But what if those same people bearing arms start using them? Is that then a revolution that the State must try to put down? Is your issue with militias in general or this one in particular?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 9:48:36 GMT -5
Ahhh, yeah, I remember that sophisticated name now. Unbelievable. But yeah, I read that a female member discharged her rifle striking a couple members. I was surprised no charges were filed. A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Let's talk about the first part of the 2nd amendment. A Militia shall be regulated is basically what it is saying. When you have 40 armed men marching down the street then to me that is a Militia and the State should regulate that militia. So should it be considered an insurrection by militia or not? Should the State Police disarm these men or make them disperse and keep their arms. It's ok to own a firearms. But there are laws that regulate how we use our arms. For example there is a law against murdering or shooting people except in defense of one's life. Many people are sitting in prison right now on the charge of murder. The states frown on the formation of militias too. But what are the laws about forming armed militias? I read that KY allows people to bear arms like AR15's in public. But what if those same people bearing arms start using them? Is that then a revolution that the State must try to put down? No, the Second Amendment is NOT saying that a militia is to be regulated..."well regulated" in that time period meant to be found in proper working order, or well trained. If one were to understand the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment being recognized in the US Constitution, one would realize that the reason it states in a crystal clear fashion that the right is NOT to be infringed, is because it makes zero sense for the government to have the authority or ability to impede that right, since government IS the entity the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from. The Second Amendment is recognized in our Constitution because, as Jefferson said, that as a last resort, we may defend ourselves against an overbearing, despotic government. And just as an aside, the Constitution doesn`t grant us any of the rights it enumerates. The Founders stated that these rights are unalienable rights, "Natural rights", as they called them, granted to us by our Creator, and because government doesn`t grant us these rights, they have no authority to trample, impede, or deny these rights. We have the right to both keep and bear firearms, and so, we intuitively have the very same right to use firearms in a legal, responsible fashion for our self-defense, against anyone who attempts to do us great harm, or, take away our God-given rights. Period. The Founders made their intentions extremely clear when they said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed. There is zero ambiguity in that declaration. Anyone who states otherwise, including Justice Antonin Scalia, is wrong. The US Constitution is the law of the land, the law that our elected employees swear an oath to uphold and defend, and that Constitution determines what our rights are, and the parameters of those rights, NOT anyone`s opinion.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 7, 2020 10:26:42 GMT -5
A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Let's talk about the first part of the 2nd amendment. A Militia shall be regulated is basically what it is saying. When you have 40 armed men marching down the street then to me that is a Militia and the State should regulate that militia. So should it be considered an insurrection by militia or not? Should the State Police disarm these men or make them disperse and keep their arms. It's ok to own a firearms. But there are laws that regulate how we use our arms. For example there is a law against murdering or shooting people except in defense of one's life. Many people are sitting in prison right now on the charge of murder. The states frown on the formation of militias too. But what are the laws about forming armed militias? I read that KY allows people to bear arms like AR15's in public. But what if those same people bearing arms start using them? Is that then a revolution that the State must try to put down? Is your issue with militias in general or this one in particular? I don't have an issue. But I read about this and was curious as to what others think about non governmental militias. This never really came up before these guys started marching along the streets of Louisville, KY armed with long rifles and handguns which were openly carried during a massive protest at such a high profile event like the KY Derby. I've wondered about this when some of the people went into some government buildings armed to the teeth before this event. I'm just wondering what the constitution really says (how the courts interpret) the meaning of the first part of the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 7, 2020 10:31:42 GMT -5
A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Let's talk about the first part of the 2nd amendment. A Militia shall be regulated is basically what it is saying. When you have 40 armed men marching down the street then to me that is a Militia and the State should regulate that militia. So should it be considered an insurrection by militia or not? Should the State Police disarm these men or make them disperse and keep their arms. It's ok to own a firearms. But there are laws that regulate how we use our arms. For example there is a law against murdering or shooting people except in defense of one's life. Many people are sitting in prison right now on the charge of murder. The states frown on the formation of militias too. But what are the laws about forming armed militias? I read that KY allows people to bear arms like AR15's in public. But what if those same people bearing arms start using them? Is that then a revolution that the State must try to put down? No, the Second Amendment is NOT saying that a militia is to be regulated..."well regulated" in that time period meant to be found in proper working order, or well trained. If one were to understand the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment being recognized in the US Constitution, one would realize that the reason it states in a crystal clear fashion that the right is NOT to be infringed, is because it makes zero sense for the government to have the authority or ability to impede that right, since government IS the entity the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from. The Second Amendment is recognized in our Constitution because, as Jefferson said, that as a last resort, we may defend ourselves against an overbearing, despotic government. And just as an aside, the Constitution doesn`t grant us any of the rights it enumerates. The Founders stated that these rights are unalienable rights, "Natural rights", as they called them, granted to us by our Creator, and because government doesn`t grant us these rights, they have no authority to trample, impede, or deny these rights. We have the right to both keep and bear firearms, and so, we intuitively have the very same right to use firearms in a legal, responsible fashion for our self-defense, against anyone who attempts to do us great harm, or, take away our God-given rights. Period. The Founders made their intentions extremely clear when they said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed. There is zero ambiguity in that declaration. Anyone who states otherwise, including Justice Antonin Scalia, is wrong. The US Constitution is the law of the land, the law that our elected employees swear an oath to uphold and defend, and that Constitution determines what our rights are, and the parameters of those rights, NOT anyone`s opinion. I'm just wondering if the State rights vs the Federal Rights come into play with the 2nd amendment. Many people who were signatories to the Constitution were worried about a Federal Government being too powerful and they wanted to makes sure that the state rights were perserved. Were most of the Militias back in the 1780's State Militias controlled by the State Governors? Now when we went to war against the British who appointed and controlled General Washington. We didn't have a President at that time. So did Washington take orders from the Governor of Virginia or anyone else. This was not discussed very much in the TV shows that cover the Revolutionary War that I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 7, 2020 10:33:42 GMT -5
No, the Second Amendment is NOT saying that a militia is to be regulated..."well regulated" in that time period meant to be found in proper working order, or well trained. If one were to understand the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment being recognized in the US Constitution, one would realize that the reason it states in a crystal clear fashion that the right is NOT to be infringed, is because it makes zero sense for the government to have the authority or ability to impede that right, since government IS the entity the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from. The Second Amendment is recognized in our Constitution because, as Jefferson said, that as a last resort, we may defend ourselves against an overbearing, despotic government. And just as an aside, the Constitution doesn`t grant us any of the rights it enumerates. The Founders stated that these rights are unalienable rights, "Natural rights", as they called them, granted to us by our Creator, and because government doesn`t grant us these rights, they have no authority to trample, impede, or deny these rights. We have the right to both keep and bear firearms, and so, we intuitively have the very same right to use firearms in a legal, responsible fashion for our self-defense, against anyone who attempts to do us great harm, or, take away our God-given rights. Period. The Founders made their intentions extremely clear when they said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed. There is zero ambiguity in that declaration. Anyone who states otherwise, including Justice Antonin Scalia, is wrong. The US Constitution is the law of the land, the law that our elected employees swear an oath to uphold and defend, and that Constitution determines what our rights are, and the parameters of those rights, NOT anyone`s opinion. I'm just wondering if the State rights vs the Federal Rights come into play with the 2nd amendment. Many people who were signatories to the Constitution were worried about a Federal Government being too powerful and they wanted to makes sure that the state rights were perserved. Were most of the Militias back in the 1780's State Militias controlled by the State Governors? Now when we went to war against the British who appointed and controlled General Washington. We didn't have a President at that time. So did Washington take orders from the Governor of Virginia or anyone else. This was not discussed very much in the TV shows that cover the Revolutionary War that I can remember. So who's job was it to train the militias back in those days. Say after the US was formed. Was it the State's Governors or President Washington's responsibility to train the Militias?
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 7, 2020 10:39:44 GMT -5
Were the militias not trained before the revolutionary war? I thought that it was George Washington that trained the revolutionary militias. I'm just trying to remember how this happened before the war started. Did we even have any American Trained Militias operated by the 13 colonies or first 13 states.
I'm also wondering what the current laws are in regards to non official Militias. To me the National Guard is what I consider a State Militia these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 12:18:26 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if the State rights vs the Federal Rights come into play with the 2nd amendment. Many people who were signatories to the Constitution were worried about a Federal Government being too powerful and they wanted to makes sure that the state rights were perserved. Were most of the Militias back in the 1780's State Militias controlled by the State Governors? Now when we went to war against the British who appointed and controlled General Washington. We didn't have a President at that time. So did Washington take orders from the Governor of Virginia or anyone else. This was not discussed very much in the TV shows that cover the Revolutionary War that I can remember. So who's job was it to train the militias back in those days. Say after the US was formed. Was it the State's Governors or President Washington's responsibility to train the Militias? It was the militia`s responsibility to train the militias...it seems that you`re not getting that NO government was to have authority over a militia, NO government, not state, not federal, NO government has the authority to trample constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Sept 7, 2020 15:40:16 GMT -5
I have a question. If the safety was on, and the finger was off of the trigger, how did the gun discharge and injure 3 people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 16:19:50 GMT -5
I have a question. If the safety was on, and the finger was off of the trigger, how did the gun discharge and injure 3 people? Someone said in a different thread, they recommended "any" gun but a Glock, because of the risk of a negligent discharge...I didn`t want to say anything there, but, no mechanical safety is 100%. The only real safety is between the ears of the operator. Regardless of any mechanical safety, you just do NOT put your finger inside the trigger guard unless and until your sights are aligned, and you have a sight picture on what you intend to destroy.
|
|