malignity
Regular Member
imported post
Ever since this 'Christian Militia' decided they were going to try to kill a cop and try bomb his funeral, I've found myself under fire for being a gun owner. Has anyone else found this to be true as well?
I've found myself in more arguments on what a militia is and is not in the last week than I have in the last ten years. Now, please understand. I am not part of the 'Michigan Militia', or part of the SWVM, or anything like that at all, however, I find myself taking a defensive stance on the wrong usage of the word militia in this case.
Am I wrong in thinking that those idiots should not be called militia members? :banghead:
The roll of a militia is to defend. Am I wrong? These people are TERRORISTS.
There's such a difference, and the media needs to learn this. Everyone is blasting this 'militia', and talking about this situation it seems (at least they are here) and I keep trying to explain this to people, and they don't understand. ANYONE who raises a weapon in defense of the state and for individual rights in a time of need is the militia. There are so many garbage definitions on what a militia is, like "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. " That's BS. You don't have to be active military, or even have any military background. The head of the 'Michigan Militia' is no more of a militia member in a time of need than anyone else, am I right?
Please, tell me if I'm in left field here, but I've felt the need to rant, because I've completely gone off the deep end with this crap in the media. If crap like this is free speech, it makes me wonder what our second amendment is protecting. This kind of stuff is slander, is it not?
Ever since this 'Christian Militia' decided they were going to try to kill a cop and try bomb his funeral, I've found myself under fire for being a gun owner. Has anyone else found this to be true as well?
I've found myself in more arguments on what a militia is and is not in the last week than I have in the last ten years. Now, please understand. I am not part of the 'Michigan Militia', or part of the SWVM, or anything like that at all, however, I find myself taking a defensive stance on the wrong usage of the word militia in this case.
Am I wrong in thinking that those idiots should not be called militia members? :banghead:
The roll of a militia is to defend. Am I wrong? These people are TERRORISTS.
There's such a difference, and the media needs to learn this. Everyone is blasting this 'militia', and talking about this situation it seems (at least they are here) and I keep trying to explain this to people, and they don't understand. ANYONE who raises a weapon in defense of the state and for individual rights in a time of need is the militia. There are so many garbage definitions on what a militia is, like "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. " That's BS. You don't have to be active military, or even have any military background. The head of the 'Michigan Militia' is no more of a militia member in a time of need than anyone else, am I right?
Please, tell me if I'm in left field here, but I've felt the need to rant, because I've completely gone off the deep end with this crap in the media. If crap like this is free speech, it makes me wonder what our second amendment is protecting. This kind of stuff is slander, is it not?