[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If you said that some white supremecists have co-opted the tea party movement, go ahead but it is inaccurate to say the tea party is based around white supremecy.

That is accurate. They are on the fringe and have actively participated in the events, but I wouldn't say they represent the Tea Party. The Tea Party is their representation though. These movements all over the country endorsed the Tea Party and gave money to the cause. This you cannot deny.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I guess the founding fathers were fringe lunatic conspiracy theorists?

That is a huge stretch of both the discussion and the language of the discussion.

The Constitution is full of "screwed up beliefs"?

No, but it is full of liberal beliefs. The founding fathers were disciples of John Locke and framed the constitution using many of the concepts and ideals they learned from his philosophy.

You're really painting all militia with a broad stroke here. There have been a couple examples of poorly constructed militia movements no doubt, but you must watch too much msnbc news. Citizen militias have not caused many American deaths. The media loves to paint militiias as a threat to society, when it's purpose is the exact opposite.

Yeah, don't watch MSNBC. They are also not a news agency, nor claim to be one. I get my information from primary sources and don't care for the useless opinion that affect the discourse and inform the intellectually lazy.

Of course you're ignoring the bombing of the Muraugh building and the influence the Michigan Militia had on the Nichols brothers. There is a reason why local, state and federal law enforcement track the behaviors of militias. They are fringe movements that hold fringe views and have access to incredible stores of weapons. These fringe elements put their views a head of every other citizen in the nation and that makes them very dangerous.

You should really read the 2nd amendment. It is meant for the States to form well regulated militias in order to defend themselves from federal tyranny.

You should read the 2nd amendment in context of the full document. If that doesn't work for you then maybe you can spend some time reading the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. Their letters further explain the framing of the constitution and make the meanings more concrete. You'd find each right does not exist in a vacuum. They are part of the entire framework and they support the entire context. The constitution outlines every facet of our government. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution you wish to defend. If you defend one part of it, you must defend it all. That is where every patriot movement fails.

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a very common one amongst conservatives. Again, it does not take into consideration context of the rest of the constitution nor the context of time. At the time the country was a loose federation of semi-autonomous states. There were very few professional soldiers and the volunteer militia was the mechanism to support the professional force. Citizens were considered the reserve force and expected to step forward and swell the ranks in the event of another incursion by a foreign or other domestic (state) army. You also have to appreciate the WMD of the day was the frigate and heavy cannon. All of this was before the United States developed a national army and comprehensive national defense strategy. Times have changed.

There is now a national army. There is a well defined national defense strategy. The WMD of the day is the nuclear weapon, capable of killing millions in one strike. More damage can be done with one air wing than the entire force faced by the founding fathers. There is a well defined reserve army, accountable to the Governor of each state. A civilian based militia is an anachronism. The modern civilian militia is a bunch of wing nuts running around in the woods playing soldier. It is not required and would be ineffective against every force except another civilian force.

As a gun owner I have no problem with others owning side arms and long rifles. But this delusion of forming militias to protect your interpretation of the constitution is just plain silly. The best militia would not stand up in an engagement with the National Guard. I would be all for a redrafting of the 2nd amendment to place it in a modern context, but some of the interpretations floating around are just plain silly and contribute to the negative discourse.