The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.

4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed. The Governor sends them home with their private weapons and can call on them to either bring their weapons or wading boots and shovels.

 

[P@triot]

They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.

4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed.

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.

4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed.

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.

Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois

Welcome to the blog of the Illinois State Militia! Whether you are a current member, a perspective member, or an interested Illinois citizen, we welcome you to check back to our blog often. On the blog we will post updates on upcoming meetings, current disaster relief activities, community involvement, and other related information. Additionally, you will find a weekly report on current news events as a means to further keep our members and fellow patriots informed.
About

We do NOT conduct, condone, talk about, or plan ANY ILLEGAL activities such as weapons conversions or manufacturing of any type weapon or explosives. If this is what your looking for your looking in the wrong direction.

Mission

To preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To provide community service and assistance where needed in times of need.

Oath

To this I do solemnly affirm and consent that:

• I am an American citizen and patriot.

• I am a militia member and part of a team.

• I serve the people of the United States of America and specifically the people of the state of Illinois.

• My mission is to see that the Constitution of the United States is upheld as it was written.

• I will always put my mission first, my brothers in arms second, and my self last.

• I will never quit or surrender.

• I am disciplined and mentally tough.

• I am as physically fit as possible.

• I commit to become proficient at whatever task I am given to fulfill my mission.

• I will maintain my arms, my equipment, and myself.

• I am a guardian of liberty and the American way of life.

• The Constitution will be upheld.

• I AM an Illinois Militiamen.

Description

ROLE OF THE MILITIA

Today’s militia has a wide spectrum of missions, from disaster relief to terrorism prevention. The slogan echoed now is “State Defense and Community Service.” One role of the militia is defense of the state from terrorism or invasion. Other roles include disaster relief, search and rescue, emergency preparedness education and serving the community. We can serve our communities

through aid programs like Harvesters, Habitat for Humanity, Project Warmth, Blood Drives as well as raising money for charities benefiting military veterans, cancer research, or volunteering at local food pantries and shelters. Given that the militia is primarily defensive in nature, it is natural that much of its resources should be aimed at bettering the communities from which it is derived.

Concept

Preparedness and defense of the constitution, concentrating on the 2nd amendment. The Illinois Militia will act as a reserve component to the National Guard with the intent to act as the State Defense Force, as there is currently no SDF for Illinois. We are classified as a civilian volunteer organization and therefore will carry out operations in absence of orders as dictated by necessity during a crisis. All Illinois Militia personnel will conduct themselves with professionalism, integrity and the utmost respect for others at all times.

General Information

We are the ILSM “ILLINOIS STATE MILITIA” not to be confused with the “ILM” or “Illinois militia”. What’s the difference? We only practice within the law. We are open to law-enforcement with both our activities and we welcome them as members.

We are NOT:

A) Anti-government on any level

B) Racist

C) Sexist

D) Anti-law enforcement

E) Extremist 6

F) Violent

G) Conspiracy theorists

H) Planning attacks on anyone

If YOU are any of these then we are not the group for you.

We ARE:

A) Pro-CONSTITUTIONAL govt.

B) Accepting of all races

C) Accepting of men or women

D) Pro-law enforcement – oaths before orders.

E) We train for many possibilities

F) Every day concerned citizens

G) Anti-ILLEGAL immigrant

H) A defensive NOT offensive militia

We have both full time rolls and support roles open for our members. Everyone can do something. Ask for details.

THE MILITIA AND YOU

The biggest challenge for militias’ today is the lack of people involved. The population today is much bigger than in 1776 and the role of the militia has been expanded tremendously. Because of this, the militia today is in need of more dedicated men and women in order to fulfill its role. With the current threat of terrorism, our unprotected borders, and the Armed Forces sent abroad, the nation is more vulnerable than ever before. You may be saying, “what can I do?” or “I don’t have any training for that” We understand. The militia is unlike anything you’ve probably ever experienced. It requires you to ask more of yourself, to learn new skills, and to take the path less traveled. It requires courage, integrity, and strength of character. In the militia you will be charged with defending your fellow man, helping those in need, facing disaster and taking a stand when it is much easier to do nothing.

Try and keep up and please stop making shit up.

 

[P@triot]

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed.

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.

Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.

Why do you lie every time I expose your ignorance? You said armed. The militia in Chicago has been disarmed (at least part of it).

Furthermore, even in your lie you lie. I said Chicago, and you post a link about Illinois.

So to recap, I respond to armed and you post militia as “proof”. I mention Chicago, and you post Illinois as “proof”. Basically you’re just a disingenuous asshole. And a liar.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed.

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.

Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.

Why do you lie every time I expose your ignorance? You said armed. The militia in Chicago has been disarmed (at least part of it).

Furthermore, even in your lie you lie. I said Chicago, and you post a link about Illinois.

So to recap, I respond to armed and you post militia as “proof”. I mention Chicago, and you post Illinois as “proof”. Basically you’re just a disingenuous asshole. And a liar.

Let's take a look to see if the Illinois Militia has been disarmed. They haven't been. They use their own weapons like every other Militia. You honestly believe that the Illinois State Guard that joined in the Civil War didn't have those arms before they were called up? Even though the weapons were issued to them when they finished training before the civil war, they took those weapons home with them. Today, they use their own personal weapons but you will find that those weapons are standardized much like it was before the Civil War. Depending on the mission, the Illinois State Militia may be unarmed OR Armed. You honestly believe that even a Regular US Military Member will be armed doing a humanitarian mission? He won't. But he can be if need be. We went on humanitarian missions along with the Army. Not a single one of us were armed. You honestly believe that while slinging those sacks of wheat that you also want to jostle a M-16 or even a sidearm?

The Illinois State Militia will only operate armed in a State Emergency. By the way, you will find that most law enforcement members are also members of the Illinois State Militia like in almost every other state with either a State Militia or a SDF. Same goes for Firefighters as well. And even EMTs.

Now, stop making shit up.

 

[danielpalos]

They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.

4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.

Listen to what he typed or read what he said. Organized Militias ARE armed.

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

States have commanders in chief of that which expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Lesh]

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable

I am not following your reasoning.

The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm." It did not limit what "arms" could be born.

Scalia did not "decouple" anything. He stated the clear textual intent of the founders, which was to prohibit government from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia or males 17-45).

If you don't like the 2A, you can amend it.

That's why this debate has raged on. One side doesn't like the 2A because it means that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional on their face. They don't have to be. The 2A can be amended. Some are just too lazy to do it.

 

[Lesh]

The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm." It did not limit what "arms" could be born.

If the 2A actually had meaning...then any weapon a militia might use should be protected.
That is obviously not true and if you read Heller you know that Scalia knew it too and tried to decouple the Militia Clause from the rest of the 2A...knowing that it was an unsustainable argument

 

[Ambivalent1]

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable

Come take our guns kid.

 

[danielpalos]

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable

I am not following your reasoning.

The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm." It did not limit what "arms" could be born.

Scalia did not "decouple" anything. He stated the clear textual intent of the founders, which was to prohibit government from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia or males 17-45).

If you don't like the 2A, you can amend it.

That's why this debate has raged on. One side doesn't like the 2A because it means that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional on their face. They don't have to be. The 2A can be amended. Some are just too lazy to do it.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable

Come take our guns kid.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

 

[basquebromance]

talk about a real crisis. Parkland is a REAL crisis that we should shut down the government over!

my friends, America's conscience is bleeding. the America people's common sense was aroused by Parkland. the time for words is over. the time for action is.......OMG I'VE BEEN SHOT!

 

[Kondor3]

Practical and effective gun-control will prove multi-faceted...

* Vetting
* Licensing
* Registration
* Training
* Centralized Database
* Nationwide Standards
* Tracking of all transfers
* Chipping individual firearms with locator technology
* Stiff fines and prison time for violators

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the 2A actually had meaning...then any weapon a militia might use should be protected.

Yes. As it should be under the language of the 2A.

That is obviously not true and if you read Heller you know that Scalia knew it too and tried to decouple the Militia Clause from the rest of the 2A...knowing that it was an unsustainable argument

Scalia did nothing but make the intent of the 2A absolutely clear, as it was written.

One side was making the dumbfuckery argument that individuals did not have a right to bear arms. That was COMPLETELY RETARDED and makes you all untrustworthy by your blatant dishonesty. It was, is, and has always been an individual right. Your side knows good and motherfucking well that the founders intended it to be an individual right. The fact that we had to fight it out in Court means that we can NEVER trust your side EVER AGAIN on the issue of the 2A or the right to bear arms.

in my opinion, Scalia didn't go far enough because of HUGE political pressure. The correct ruling would have been to declare the NFA and all other gun laws unconstitutional, including the Hughes Amendment which bans full autos.

The immediate response would have been a push for a constitutional amendment--the right way to go about it.

As far as I am concerned, there is no debate on the meaning of the 2A. It is an individual right that shall not be infringed, meaning NO RESTRICTIONS.

Don't like it? Amend it.

.

 

[Lesh]

in my opinion, Scalia didn't go far enough because of HUGE political pressure. The correct ruling would have been to declare the NFA and all other gun laws unconstitutional, including the Hughes Amendment which bans full autos.

Which is essentially what I am saying.

If the Militia Clause means anything...then those things would be true.That is obviously not the case.

Read Heller closer. He essentially says the Militia Clause means nothing

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which is essentially what I am saying.

If the Militia Clause means anything...then those things would be true.That is obviously not the case.

Read Heller closer. He essentially says the Militia Clause means nothing

I agree that the militia clause means nothing. The fact that your side tried to focus on it is another reason why we can never trust you.

The militia clause was simply stating a specific, but non-exclusive purpose. To ignore the VERY PLAIN language of the second clause is dishonest at best.

There is always the amendment process. Why is that constantly ignored?

.

 

[Lesh]

I agree that the militia clause means nothing.

Unfortunately it is the reason for the 2A so you're saying that the 2A no longer applies.

I agree

But here you are "decoupling" the militia clause from the 2A because that makes your argument losing one. Just like Scalia in Heller

 

[The2ndAmendment]

NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

**** the NRA. It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.

And Hillary is gonna win by a landslide in 2020

Is that the best you can do? Of course it is. Try being more creative. That horse is so dead and beaten, it's just a blood stain on the ground.

THE RUSSIANS

THE RUSSIAN HORSE

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unfortunately it is the reason for the 2A so you're saying that the 2A no longer applies.

No. I said it was a reason, a non-exclusive reason.

This part is unequivocable: the right of the people....shall not be infringed.

And, even if it is confusing, isn't the better path AMENDING it, rather than getting into bullshit squabbles where your side is stuck arguing that "shall not be infringed" means shall be infringed?

Amend it.