This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Photos Emerge Of 10 "Active Militia Teams" Securing The US-Mexico Border

Tyler Durden's picture


With 1000s of illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border every day (perhaps even more now some of the border has been washed away), the government quietly dumping them in Tennessee (among other places), and current (recently constructed border protection infrastructure already breaking down), it appears the American people are taking matters into their own hands. Photos showing dozens of members of militia groups on the U.S.-Mexico border carrying semi-automatic rifles and wearing masks, camouflage and tactical gear provide one of the first glimpses into the group's activities on the border. The groups, including Oathkeepers, Three Percenters and Patriots, began recruiting and organizing more than a month ago and recent Facebook entries provide more color on their perspective: "You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, 'Get back across the border or you will be shot.' ...We are not worried about an 'International' incident."


It appears the American people is growing frustrated as the government's inaction... or in some cases action...

As Fox reports, the Obama administration recently released 760 illegal immigrant children to sponsors in the Volunteer State without any warning, the governor charged.


There was not so much as a text message or tweet.


“It is unacceptable that we became aware via a posting on the HHS website that 760 unaccompanied children have been released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to sponsors in Tennessee  without my administration’s knowledge,” the governor wrote in a strongly-worded letter to President Obama.


The Office of Refugee Resettlement says sponsors are typically a parent or relative who can care for the illegal immigrant child while their immigration case is processed. All sponsors are required to undergo background checks.


It’s also unclear why the ORR is handling the children – since they are illegal immigrants and not refugees.


It’s been the Obama administration’s standard operating procedure to release the illegals into states without notifying local or state government officials.

And the current government-provided border protection infrastructure is already breaking down...

An unusual amount of rain that ravaged parts of southern Arizona also knocked down 60 feet of the rebar-reinforced steel fence that divides the U.S. and Mexico.



The storms began Friday in Sonora, Mexico, and resumed Saturday night until Sunday morning, when debris from the Mexican side of the border traveled through a wash and piled up against the border fence. The fence, just west of the Nogales-Mariposa Port of Entry near Interstate 19, stood between 18 and 26 feet high and extended at least 7 feet underground.




The fence was built in 2011. It is constantly monitored by agents because smugglers and others who attempt to cross illegally routinely try to breach or knock down parts of it.


"It had a lot of water behind it, and it just pushed the fence straight down," said John Hays, floodplain coordinator for the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District. "If you're fencing is tight enough to catch debris, it basically becomes a dam. It's not meant to withstand those loads of water."


Hays said the fence appears to have floodgates, but they did not open.

So a number of locals have taken the challenge upon themselves. As Chron reports, photos showing dozens of members of militia groups on the U.S.-Mexico border carrying semi-automatic rifles and wearing masks, camouflage and tactical gear provide one of the first glimpses into the group's activities on the border.

Members of the militia groups, who say they have 10 active "teams" along the state's southern border, are seen at campsites, walking along the Rio Grande River, pointing rifles and pistols out of frame and flipping off the camera in the photos obtained by the San Antonio Express-News.


A spokesperson for the group provided the photos under the condition that members' faces be blurred because of fear of being identified by "cartel and gang members."




The groups, including Oathkeepers, Three Percenters and Patriots, began recruiting and organizing more than a month ago, as national media outlets began focusing on an influx of Central American immigrants illegally crossing the border, including more than 50,000 unaccompanied minors.




Some Facebook comments from members of the militias indicate the groups are not fearful of using force.


"(Rules of Engagement) is if in fear of bodily injury, weapons free, if fired upon, return fire. Real simple," member KC Massey posted along with a photo on Facebook. "We are not worried about an "International" incident if they shoot at us."


In an interview with the Express-News, Chris Davis, commander of the militia's "Operation Secure Our Border: Laredo Sector", who is seen in some of the photos, said members would secure the border in a "legal and lawful manner."


However, in a since-deleted 21-minute YouTube video of Davis, he said: "How? You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, 'Get back across the border or you will be shot.'"

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, denounced the militia groups in a statement, saying "pointing guns at children solves nothing."

"Local law enforcement and federal border patrol agents have been clear. The presence of these outside independent militia groups does nothing to secure the border; it only creates an unsafe situation for law enforcement officials that are protecting our communities. Unfortunately, the vile rhetoric of my opponent inspires misguided efforts," said Van de Putte, who is running against state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, for lieutenant governor.

See more images here...



See more images here...


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:40 | 5016098 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

They don't have to worry about accidentally running into border control agents do they?

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:43 | 5016113 knukles
knukles's picture

Not until Obie orders the Border Patrol back to the border to protect the "innocent" illegals streaming across.

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:48 | 5016141 Publicus
Publicus's picture

A new age is dawning.

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:52 | 5016151 ACP
ACP's picture

So when do they get blamed for shooting down a commercial airliner?

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:58 | 5016170 Slave
Slave's picture

The only good guys left. False flag incoming.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:03 | 5016192 Comte de Saint ...
Comte de Saint Germain's picture

Most likely agent provocateurs under the DHS/FBI payroll

The upcoming Executive Orders are going to be broader and drastic in scope -too bad for the so-called militias.

Moreover, the Second Amendment was never indented to give the right to ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms; instead, the Sovereign decides who qualifies for such privilege and the language of this amendment is extremely clear (except for those who don’t understand semantics)

Amendment II

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.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:08 | 5016201 Slave
Slave's picture

So "people" is not ordinary Americans?

The "militia" is not ordinary Americans?

Do you know anything about the American Revolution?

That kool-aid must be some strong shit.

What's next? "well regulated" means bureaucratic regulation?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:12 | 5016205 Comte de Saint ...
Comte de Saint Germain's picture

Define the following:

  •  Militia
  •  Regulated militia
  • A well regulated militia


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:20 | 5016223 Slave
Slave's picture

...........pasted from elsewhere..........Christ almighty man...........

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Go read Federalist Papers #46 and take your statist bullshit elsewhere.

EDIT: Also, upvoting yourself is for fags.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:31 | 5016250 Comte de Saint ...
Comte de Saint Germain's picture

militia (md-lisb-a), n. (16c) 1. A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces .• The Constitution rec­ognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Congress the power to activate, organize, and govern a federal militia. U.S. Canst. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD

Militia Clause. (1918) One of two clauses of the U.S. Constitution giving Congress the power to call forth, arm, and maintain a military force to enforce compli­ance with its laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th Ed


Cls. 15 and 16—Power over the Militia
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militi according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Calling Out the Militia
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection. The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war. The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:32 | 5016291 ACP
ACP's picture

So by that logic, without the second amendment, the US would've lost WWII because the government wouldn't have been authorized to create a "militia"?

I think I understand now...


...the absurdity of progressivism.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:44 | 5016340 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

10 U.S. Code 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.   Most states, the top age is even higher for mandatory organized or unorganized militia.  What isn't stated is where the arms come from, for one very good reason:  YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BRING YOUR OWN!
Tue, 07/29/2014 - 03:58 | 5016649 Divine
Divine's picture

This is amazing! So if they have around 30 to 35 million illegals now, who wish to become citizens of the United States. Then the black barrack can set up a federal militia of 10-15 million illegals.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:58 | 5016842 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Hey lets just start a war of own, for any reason really, we don't want to be left out the crowd or anything, it's the new fad, it's the new trend, you know "the in thing", and make it self funded, it will be good for the economy, build national spirit, we can re-adjust the employment figures, keep kids busy. Hardly anyone loooses, I think.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:28 | 5017015 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Obvious Chechen terrorist. You can tell because they are wearing mask.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:12 | 5017168 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

Hey St. Germain, you just got your ass handed to you by the ZH militia.  Do you understand it now?  Real-life experience always trumps paper hypotheses.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:15 | 5017180 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

"I have yet to meet an enemy in this country that would tell you that the sight of a long gun within a unit on the ground is not an unnerving one."

The scoped rifle the gentleman is carrying in the last photo is not a beginner's rifle (caliber, not paint job) and is well suited to the terrain, though is it also not a very expensive one, nor is the scope.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:10 | 5016972 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

"We need to have a civilian national security force, just as strong, just as well funded as the military..."

-Barry Obongo Amin, summer 2008

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:00 | 5017130 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

Troll junks only make us stronger.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:33 | 5017039 PirateOfBaltimore
PirateOfBaltimore's picture

Even more important to note is section (b): 

(a) is the "organized militia" (not "regulated")

(b) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


"Militia" broadly includes all able bodied males > 17 < 45, the "organized" subset of which involves the national guard, the "unorganized" being the rest of that group - i.e. normal Americans.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:36 | 5016310 Reset
Reset's picture

The meaning has been twisted in recent years by statists such as yourself. Imagine that. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:44 | 5016468 PT
PT's picture

Now you just need border guards patrolling Wall St and DC.  Don't let anything in.  Don't let anything out.



You can kill as many pawns as you like.  The game don't end until the king is threatened and cannot see any way to escape.  (Unlike all the other pieces, the king doesn't even have to die).

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:13 | 5016407 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

@Comte de Saint:

I'm the militia. And I'm armed. What the fuck you going to do about it? 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 04:42 | 5016691 barre-de-rire
barre-de-rire's picture

pop corn & watch you kill your similars ..?


in fact looking an animal armed with a gun saying he is milicia for freedom while he voted for a nigger twice then blaming his .gov to misacting..... is just...medically....pathological relevent.


there is not treatment.


what happen to US society is fully deserved.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:04 | 5016849 Mabussur
Mabussur's picture







Your posts (all of them) are eyesores and bring nothing worthy.

Bonus : L2STFU.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 13:29 | 5018453 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Now that is the truth of the matter.  Carry on.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 03:31 | 5016619 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Shit for brains wrong. The idea of a well regulated militia comes from the writings of Andrew Fletcher and Abraham Stanyan.

From Fletcher


A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued eight hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a good militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia.

I have shown that liberty in the monarchical governments of Europe, subsisted so long as the militia of the barons was on foot: and that on the decay of their militia (which though it was none of the best, so was it none of the worst) standing forces and tyranny have been everywhere introduced, unless in Britain and Ireland; which by reason of their situation, having the sea for frontier, and a powerful fleet to protect them, could afford no pretence for such forces. And though any militia, however slightly constituted, be sufficient for that reason to defend us; yet all improvements in the constitution of militias, being further securities for the liberty of the people, I think we ought to endeavour the amendment of them, and till that can take place, to make the present militias useful in the former and ordinary methods.

That the whole free people of any nation ought to be exercised to arms, not only the example of our ancestors, as appears by the acts of parliament made in both kingdoms to that purpose, and that of the wisest governments among the ancients; but the advantage of choosing out of great numbers, seems clearly to demonstrate. For in countries where husbandry, trade, manufactures, and other mechanical arts are carried on, even in time of war, the impediments of men are so many and so various, that unless the whole people be exercised, no considerable numbers of men can be drawn out, without disturbing those employments, which are the vitals of the political body. Besides, that upon great defeats, and under extreme calamities, from which no government was ever exempted, every nation stands in need of all the people, as the ancients sometimes did of their slaves. And I cannot see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught the use of them.

By the constitution of the present militia in both nations, there is but a small number of the men able to bear arms exercised; and men of quality and estate are allowed to send any wretched servant in their place: so that they themselves are become mean, by being disused to handle arms; and will not learn the use of them, because they are ashamed of their ignorance: by which means the militias being composed only of servants, these nations seem altogether unfit to defend themselves, and standing forces to be necessary. Now can it be supposed that a few servants will fight for the defence of their masters' estates, if their masters only look on? Or that some inconsiderate freeholders, as for the most part those who command the militia are, should, at the head of those servants, expose their lives for men of more plentiful estates, without being assisted by them? No bodies of military men can be of any force or value, unless many persons of quality or education be among them; and such men should blush to think of excusing themselves from serving their country, at least for some years, in a military capacity, if they consider that every Roman was obliged to spend fifteen years of his life in their armies. Is it not a shame that any man who possesses an estate, and is at the same time healthful and young, should not fit himself by all means for the defence of that, and his country, rather than to pay taxes to maintain a mercenary, who though he may defend Mm during a war, will be sure to insult and enslave him in time of peace. Men must not think that any country can be in a constant posture of defence, without some trouble and charge; but certainly it is better to undergo this, and to preserve our liberty with honour, than to be subjected to heavy taxes, and yet have it insolently ravished from us, to our present oppression, and the lasting misery of our posterity. But it will be said, where are the men to be found who shall exercise all this people in so many several places at once? for the nobility and gentry know nothing of the matter; and to hire so many soldiers of fortune, as they call them, will bechargeable, and may be dangerous, these men being all mercenaries, and always the same men, in the same trusts: besides that the employing such men would not be suitable to the design of breeding the men of quality and estate to command, as well as the others to obey.




Tue, 07/29/2014 - 03:47 | 5016626 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

pg 19 /159 in the pdf


Abraham Stanyan’s Account of Switzerland (1714) described, “a well regulated Militia, in Opposition to a standing Army of mercenary Troops, that may overturn a Government at Pleasure.”

He portrayed the Bern militia as consisting of “the whole Body of the People, from sixteen to sixty,” explaining:
    Every Man that is listed, provides himself with Arms at his own Expence; and the Regiments are all armed in an uniforme                 manner, after the newest Fashion; for which Purpose, there is an Officer called a Commissioner of Arms , whose Business it  is, to inspect their Arms and Mounting, to take Care they be conformable to the Standard, and to punish such as fail in those Particulars.

The Swiss experience figured prominently in the American Revolution and afterwards in American constitution building. In his Defence of the Constitutions (1787), a survey of ancient and modern republics and other political models, John Adams divided the Swiss cantons—regardless of whether they were “democratical” or “aristocratical”—as having two institutions of direct democracy: the right to bear arms and the right to vote on laws. Bern had a democratic militia system: “There is no standing army, but every male of sixteen is enrolled in the militia, and obligated to provide himself a uniform, a musket, powder, and ball; and no peasant is allowed to marry, without producing his arms and uniform. The arms are inspected every year, and the men exercised.”


You can't have a militia to defend your home and neighbors/community/state/country unless the people can be armed in the first place and to be 'well regulated' they have to be armed in a uniform manner. If we had a government that believed in this they wouldn't be militarizing the police forces but giving those weapons out to law abiding citizens and training them to use them just in case.

It is just stating a natural right to self defense for the individual on up.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 04:14 | 5016671 Divine
Divine's picture

Finnish guy's still need to serve 6 to 12 months in the Finnish defence forces. I quess that's why we still have our independence after ww2. We still can't store our rifles at home as they do in switzerland but trained guys usually don't freeze in panic.


Still we have the 4th largest private gun ownership ratio in the world per capita. ~2,4 million private guns for 5 million people. Switzerland is at number 3.


Has anyone of you had the pleasure to fire finnish RK-62 (M62) / RK-95 TP (M95)?


Every guy here can disassemble and reassemble these for under 30 sec :)





Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:27 | 5016738 zhandax
zhandax's picture

Fuck the arguments of trolls trying to reinforce the trashing of the Constitution. Your tax dollars at work.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:36 | 5016750 mc225
mc225's picture

those 20mm ATRs are koo

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:38 | 5017053 PirateOfBaltimore
PirateOfBaltimore's picture

Wait, 4th highest gun ownership rate, but you don't have a fuck ton of mass murders?  I thought guns were the problem?!


No, it's broken American culture that's the problem.  It's inner cities where demanding "respect" outweighs things like "the natural right to self defense" and the non-aggression principle...

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 11:24 | 5017833 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

Love those Finnish arms. I personally own two KP-31s, a M -38 and a Lahti 9mm pistol. Do you guys have any 20 mm M39s you could send my way? Kiitos paljon

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 17:45 | 5019704 Trogdor
Trogdor's picture

"Has anyone of you had the pleasure to fire finnish RK-62 (M62) / RK-95 TP (M95)?"


Looks like a milled-receiver AK-variant with some well-thought out improvements.  I haven't fired the RK-62 per-se, but I've fired similar variants.  AK's aren't the most accurate beasts out there, but it takes a hell of a lot to make them *stop* working.  Personally, I'm partial to the AK-74 ;)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 18:26 | 5019862 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

RK-62s are fun to shoot, and built more solidly than the AK.

Pro-tip: when fresh out of the box and 'cleaned' of cosmoline, make sure you have eye protection.  Trust me, you didn't get all the cosmoline out....

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 04:05 | 5016659 Moloch
Moloch's picture

downvoting facts. Way to go ZH. Facts are not wanted here, I see.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:30 | 5016805 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

No. We are down voting someone who is attempting to present that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth as "fact".

It isn't and only a troglodyte could confuse his presentation with fact.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:50 | 5016935 N2OJoe
N2OJoe's picture

You seem to be confusing Troglodyte with Paid troll and/or vested interest in the staus quo.

To Tyrants, the truth is something to be stamped out or twisted 180 degrees.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:05 | 5017410 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Troll or troglodyte, they both live under rocks.

If the Tyrants are sending professionals, instead of useful idiots, then they should send professionals worthy ZH.

A debate over how much "well regulated" owes its origin to the drunken discharge of firearms versus those "special" rednecks who went full-auto with their AK47's and then realized their neighbor's M16 musket balls wouldn't fit in their fancy ferner weapons, or that fat kid who always complained and couldn't hit the broad side barn at 20 paces is at least interesting, and can be supported by the mountains of historical evidence.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 14:36 | 5018854 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Simple facts for the chitlins.  Disarmed means potential for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, or any other mass slaughter of civilians.  Armed means civilians have the means to prevent their own slaughter.  Ask any of the 100,000,000 people murdered in the name of socialism over the past 100 years if they prefer disarmed or armed.  Oh wait, you can't because they were disarmed and now they are dead.

Anyone who argues for strict England-style gun control or outright disarmament is simply pushing for the power of a dictator to slaughter his or her people.  Some might call that conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:10 | 5016800 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Dimwit: the definition of militia goes back goes back well over 1000 years (hint: fyrd, leding, leidang, etc). In the War of 1812, who do you think was fighting the mighty British Royal Navy with the latest military artillery?

Or to quote myself:

For the legion of low-intellect lefties who want to demonstrate their stupidity by quibbling about the English language meaning of "well-regulated" I would recommend reading the works of Fletcher (1698) and Stanyan (1714) beforehand.

Then read the correspondence between Mason and Washington regarding the Virginia Militia. Back then, gun-toting rednecks worldwide brought their own black guns, powder, and high-capacity bags of balls, along with their own BEER for the weekend chug & shoots. The Virginian officer corps had a predilection for RUM (which created some desires for slightly better "regulation" among those with responsibility for victory). However, to this day in Switzerland, while most of the black rifles are paid for by the State, the gun-toting rednecks still have to bring or buy their own ammunition and BEER at the range (outside of certain State-sponsored parties where some brass is included with the price of admission).

Well-regulated doesn't, and never did, mean what most people think it means (but then Vizzini was a pompous asswipe)


EDIT There's also Eliot's Debates, which details ad nauseam many of the nuances of the actually debate over the text and ramifications of Second Amendment through the various State ratifying Conventions. Or if you want to go really hardcore Virginian, there is David Robertson's Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, convened at Richmond, on Monday the second day of June, 1788, for the purpose of Deliberating on the Constitution recommended by the Grand Federal Convention, to which is prefixed the Federal Constitution

Copies of both books should still be available from the Google Plagiarization & Intellectual-Property-Theft bot.


danke vielmals. I didn't have those two in soft-copy, now I do.

Elliot's Debates- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Debates and other proceedings of the Convention of Virginia

A discourse of government with relation to militias (1755)

An Account of Switzerland: Written in the Year 1714 (English Version)

Edit: WHY FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS SO IMPORTANT AND USEFUL -- this was easy to find since "fyrd" or anything else relating to militia as far back as Alfred the Great just is so popular on ZH:

from May 2013 (with appearances by Francis Sawyer, Joyful, Ghordius, tip e, and a bunch of the other usual suspects)


I could also be a dick and whip out the DICK ACT from 1902 or the Selective Service Act of 1917 for a more recent affirmation by the US Congress and signed by the US President as to who is included in the militia is... (both of these acts have been more recently revised and updated by Congress, yet the defintions contained therein remain the law of the land to this day

EDIT: For the extremely ill-informed readers, the reason Virginia actually is more important that other States in regards to the Second Amendment is because the entire Bill of Rights was basically plagarization of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the preamble to the Virginia State Constitution, but since people were well read if not also well educated back in the day, this went without saying)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:27 | 5016887 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

Absolutely outstanding post.  Thank you for this effort sir.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:54 | 5016944 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

UR, outstanding source gathering. Yet for us non-US-citizens, am I correct in the assumption that the free militia in the photographs is not to be considered as covered by the 2nd Amendment? Mainly because there is an established and functioning chain of command going up to the governor and the commander in chief, and this free militia is not attached to it?

At least this is the way I understood it, i.e. that the US Constitution (particularly the 2nd amendment) grants the specific freedom to form a militia (particularly in cases where waiting for a call is not possible or smart)... followed by a duty to subordinate this militia asap to the US Authorities (which in this case would probably sent the free militia back home)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:57 | 5016950 wtf1369
wtf1369's picture

Such is life when "leadership" is derelict in its duties. Eventually the people subject to the sharp end of that dereliction take matters into their own hands.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:31 | 5017018 gwiss
gwiss's picture



May I suggest you consider the US Constitution from the perspective that it was written?  Imagine that there IS no Federal Government.  No central authority.  And imagine that this document that you are helping create is the agreement that you are making with other states.


From this perspective, your sentence "At least this is the way I understood it, i.e. that the US Constitution (particularly the 2nd amendment) grants the specific freedom to form a militia" is backwards, in that the Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of freedoms that the Federal Government grants to the people.  Instead, the Bill of Rights is aimed squarely at the Federal Government -- not at the people.  It functions as a "Do Not Trespass" sign that delineates exactly how much space the Federal Goverment has been granted to operate, within which the Federal Government is sovereign, and outside of which the Fedral Government has no more say than a peanut vendor. The Bill of Rights is not a moat that protects US citizens from the Federal Government.  It is instead a fence that is supposed to keep the Federal Government safely inside its enclosure so that it can't hurt the citizens or take over the country.


Thus, the Federal Government did not GRANT the states or the people the "right" to bear arms or the "freedom" to form a milita -- they already had that ability and that freedom and therefore that "right" before they themselves formed the Federal Government and tasked it with taking care of a few specific duties on their behalf.  Instead, the Bill of Rights makes clear that the Federal Government has no right to interfere with this process IN ANY WAY, as a well armed and self organized people are the best defense against tyranny.



Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:45 | 5017078 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

gswiss, I fully agree that the perspective is one where historically the militias were not federal. Yet they were state militias, weren't they? Note that I inserted the governor in between of the chain of command

further, it's the federal constitution we are talking about, isn't it?

anyway, fine, let's take your point as valid. the freedom of forming the militia. fine. and then? my point is: what if the Governor and/or the US President tell them: Thank you guys, well done, now go home? this is the point you and all the others are tiptoing around

You are Swiss, aren't you? There the case is much more clearer to me. If a militia would not go home after being asked to by Swiss State or Federal Authorities... well, then it's a rebellion. In fact, it's even a rebellion if the Canton (aka Swiss State) is backing the militia but the federal authorities aren't

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:16 | 5017163 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture


my point is: what if the Governor and/or the US President tell them: Thank you guys, well done, now go home?this is the point you and all the others are tiptoing around

We go home when we are good and ready. The point is, we do not answer to the Feds and given the current state of Federal subservience at the state level, they too would likely be told to piss off. 


EDIT: Of any local government offical likely to be heeded, it would be a constitutional county sheriff - an elected office.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 11:18 | 5017806 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

That's much more concise and to the point than my answer way down below. Thanks

Where would the Federal government even get the right to order a band of private citizens to cease and desist in the first place? (unless they were engaged in interstate commerce or something)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:16 | 5017185 gwiss
gwiss's picture

Gosh you're quick on the reply!  Is there some way to get notified about responses to comments that I don't know about?

To really understand the Constution from the perspective it was written, we also have to imagine the environment that these people lived in.  There were towns, but an awful lot of isolated hamlets and loosely dispersed population.  Very difficult to exert any central control over.  Central authority was therefore difficult to impose, whether we are talking about Federal or State.  Milita could be and was organized in some places by state dictate, but in most places was organized on the initiative of locals, controlled and run by locals, and answering to no specific chain of command.  It was the result of local people banding together to protect and defend and organize themselves.


If a state governor appeared and told them to go home, then whether they should or not depends on the agreement the citizens of that particular state forged with each other when they created the sovereign entity of their state government, which owns (or at least, should own) all land not privately held, and enforcing that should be up to that particular state. If the US President, on the other hand, tells them to go home, then according to the Constitution, they should tell him to go pound sand, because he has no authority to dictate this to them.  The US armed forces are not allowed to operate on US soil against US citizens.  They are only allowed to operate on US soil against encroachment/attack from foreign forces.


That was the purpose of the Posse Comitatus act, to forbid Federal troops from operating within the country.  Unfortunately, it has been watered down with the Enforcement act of Eisenhower, which allows Federal government troops to enforce aspects of the US Constitution if state authorities are unable/unwilling to do so, which means that all a sitting president has to do is declare state authorities unable or unwilling and he is then off to the races.  It has been further watered down to the point of being meaningless by the exclusion of the Coast Guard, I don't see that there is any specific mention of whether the Department of Homeland Security is restricted by it, and the NDAA gutted it completely by giving the Federal Government the right to exert martial authority over "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."


So, where does that leave us?  The intent was that the Federal Government should, for the most part, STFU and stay out of it.  But in the end, as the Civil War demonstrated, all of the good intentions in the world can't restrain the hunger for central authority to get larger and exert its power deeper and deeper into the lives of the citizens, and what the Big Dog wants, the Big Dog will take.


Which is the whole point of the Second Amendment. 


God forbid it ever comes to that again.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:37 | 5017266 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I have trouble imagining (federal) General Washington fighting the Brits, ordering a battaillion of free militia to clear the way for a flanking manouver of his troops and politely listening to them telling him to STFU and go away, to be frank ;-)

interesting views, thanks for the answer, I'll beg UR to answer too, it might be even more enlightening. no, I just happened to see your reply on the right-side bar, where I often "fish" for interesting comments

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:01 | 5017363 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I'm not the UR you're looking for (inarticulate rabble that I am), but GW and the militia were on the same side. It was a rebellion. I can understand foreigners not fully understanding the gravity of the 2nd Amendment or what the implications are of the higher profile of the militias in the US right now. I cannot excuse Americans for not understanding the gravity of the 2nd or their individual responsibility for their own liberty or upholding the Constitution, oaths or lack thereof notwithstanding.

EDIT - If  we're talking a "Red Dawn" type scenario, then yes, the militia would likely be more inclined to listen to formal military channels. As it is, we are dealing with a domestic issue, plain and simple.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:11 | 5017439 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Uncle Remus, I defer (somewhat) to UR just because he is much more versed in the legalese side of history. And I would not call you neither inarticulated nor rabble. but I've been in quite a few warzones, and counterintuitively, traffic control was often the most important reason for chain of commands, particularly for critical supplies

what if the militia is formed and funded by an oligarch? note that in Ukraine this happens. there are interesting implications in your view and private armies, too

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:40 | 5017596 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture


legalese side of history


Mental masturbation and gum flapping.


traffic control was often the most important reason for chain of commands, particularly for critical supplies


To assume a lack of coordination or cooperation amongst militia simply because it is informal and doesn't make itself an obvious target is to fail to understand the lessons of US gov't attacks on and demonization of militias in the past. Granted, there were some really dumb-ass militias.

Make no mistake Ghordo, the game is afoot, it's just not hot yet. Just as the US is trying to goad Putin into open confrontation, the US is pushing the buttons of the militia. Bundy is an example of that, this border bullshit may well be another. I lived in AZ for over 30 years, I know people are sick and tired of the illegals and all their motherfucking baggage - crime, gangs, disease and the unwillingness to integrate into society. In fact, the only real differences between them and the Muslims that immigrate, with respect to integration into society, is that they aren't Muslim and there is a shit-load more of them. There will likely be blood.

There's a reason the US gov't demonizes it's veterans. A decade plus of constant war has filled the militia ranks with combat veterans who in turn have trained and brought order, cohesion, tactics, intelligence and logistics to the table.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 12:11 | 5018105 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture


You probably know more than most Americans about the US militias formed and funded by US oligarchs... so'll skip the privateers.

The most famous example I can think of being a certain oligarch (and later trust buster) named T. Roosevelt who resigned his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy after ordering the invasion of the Philippines in order to form the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry and invade Cuba (Uncle Sam wasn't paying for Brooks Brothers to outfit the general Army).

The Rough Riders were subordinated to the regular army 5th Corps, and the top heavy 1st Volunteer officer corps had received federal commissions, so all the paperwork was in order before they departed, but the sequence commenced with self/private finance and organization after the President was "persuaded" to call for the formation of a new militia organism.

Then came the Dick Act

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 14:56 | 5018952 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Do some reading.  That sort of thing happened to GW, more frequently in the beginning than the end.  The militia would walk off if they felt like it.  They were volunteers and as such were not beholden to anyone but the officers they elected to lead them.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:12 | 5017148 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

No. They are exactly what a militia is, especially in the context of the 2nd. They are doing what the Constitution REQUIRES the Federal government to do but will not - secure our borders. That is willful treason.

No. Do not confuse the state Guard for "militia". The "guard" is a tool of the Federal government, or at least they like to think so. Lack of centralized control is the very essence of an irregular militia.

Emphatically no. There is no formal process for a militia under the 2nd. Push comes to shove and out come the weapons. The 2nd ensures those weapons are there - that's it - it's no more complicated than that.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 11:10 | 5017768 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The way I am reading your post it think you might be errantly applying the 2nd amendment to the militia, when it actually applies to the people.

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.

I will contradict and undercut myself in a minute, but this generalization might help (outside of the two quotes below) "A/The Militia" (unqualified) simply refers to the whole body of of the people. In legal parlance and literature this is often more precisely specified as the "unorganized militia" to distinguish the militia from various organized formations of the militia.

The second amendment simply doesn't address who has authority to organize units of the militia. Those individuals certainly have the right to keep and bear those arms. But whether there is a specific State or Local law that precludes those individuals from organizing their own militia is a separate matter and one which would actually be "difficult" to address through Federal law (except if it applied strictly to organization of non-Federal militias on Federal lands). Federal Law only deals with 1) the organization of the Federal militias, 2) the transfer of State regulated militias to Federal control under certain circumstances, and 3) conscripting members of the unorganized militia into units of the organized Federal militia under certain circumstances. (#2 could also be written as "conscripting members of the organized State militia into units of the organized Federal militia under certain circumstances", but that muddies the waters even more)

Richard Henry Lee
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.

George Mason's ominous warning about Dick Cheney and the neocons...
Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.

Wed, 07/30/2014 - 02:55 | 5021439 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

UR, thanks, I think I understood the basics, finally

Wed, 07/30/2014 - 11:08 | 5022655 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Now what I find interesting is that UR put down a bit of history and reference points for you to, how you say in American, wrap your mind around this. Furthermore, UR stated "You probably know more than most Americans about the US militias formed and funded by US oligarchs... so'll skip the privateers." and on that point I would agree. I personally love history and have learned many things in the recent months and years regarding militia, the Constitution and so on. Call it my undoctrination.

My point is that while most liberty-minded Americans may not have a grasp on any historical underpinnings other than the glossing over of their public school education, they do have an innate understanding of Jefferson's Rightful Liberty even if they can't put a name to it. They also understand self-defense as an inalienable right irrespective of the vermin in Vichy DC, their sycophants or that son-of-a-bitch Bloomberg. In short, I AM the militia and it is a heavy responsibility.

History is good, learning from it is better. But, THE bottom line is the here and now and the only context that matters is surviving the bullshit, liberty intact. Useless talkings have gotten us nowhere. What matters now is what WE are going to DO about it - as in verb, action. And history shows this can be done.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:20 | 5016876 NoPension
NoPension's picture

All that brain power, and legalize, for what? To give away a fundamental right codified by, ( for the first time in human history) the Constitution of the United States?
Taking it down a couple of notches, for everyone's benefit , Are you fucking retarded?

All of your bullshit aside. I and many others read it like this. Follow closely fool.
I was born. I have a right, just for existing, to protect myself. I can't do that, effectively if I am unarmed. ( in the weapons of the age in which I live). And knowing, for a fact, that a government or government entity is the most likely danger to my safety ( see for reference; All of human history), the intent of the 2nd Ammendment is to give Government a reason to pause when deciding to usurp my liberties.
It is meant to at least give us a fighting chance.

And you morons want us to enter into a mutuall suicide pact, and unilaterally disarm. What rock do you people crawl out from? What fucked up shit is put into your head, to come to this conclusion? And you make your way into politics, and academia, a foist this insanity on more dupes.

Molon Labe, you ignorant asshole.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:31 | 5016891 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

Short, err not exactly sweet, and to the point.  Thank you as well.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:51 | 5016933 H. Perowne
H. Perowne's picture

10 week DHS trolls should move a little beyond the cut'n'paste. But I suppose that if you had any initiative or creativity you would have found yourself a real job. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:54 | 5016943 wtf1369
wtf1369's picture


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:55 | 5017358 wtf1369
wtf1369's picture

Fuck you junkers too. None of you pussies deserve to live among free men.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:05 | 5019002 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Exactly how do you intend to remain living and free if you are disarmed?

Here is the irony.  You would give guns, and authorize their lethal use, to people because they were some kind of uniform (or don't).  You aren't about freedom, safety, or whatever crap you claim.  You are about control of the many by the few.  I pity you.  You only encourage the genocide that becomes possible when people are disarmed. 

I am against mass murder.  Why are you for it?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:34 | 5019140 wtf1369
wtf1369's picture

Hold up chief. I have no intention of being disarmed.

My original "fuck you" comment above was to the asshole shitting on my second amendment guarantee (of a right which I was born with) and my follow up comment was to the junkers that junked my "fuck you" to the asshole shitting on my second amendment guarantee. I'm guessing you misread that. I in no way endorse or accept the notion that my "handlers" posses some extra special right to bear arms and employ force on me and mine because they were issued a snappy uniform.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:34 | 5017040 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Comte de Saint


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence



Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:41 | 5017595 NeedtoSecede
NeedtoSecede's picture



Stackers, I think a little Sam Adams is appropriate here also for these fucking trolls.  JFC!  This is some really simple stuff, but these fucking statist dipshits just keep trying to confuse and complicate by trying to change the meaning of fucking everything that conflicts with their dreams of utopia:

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Emphasis mine)

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, the right to life, second to liberty, and third to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." (Emphasis mine)

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace.  We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." (Emphasis mine--did you hear that mother fuckers, we ask not your counsel!)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:21 | 5016251 Drunk In Church
Drunk In Church's picture

Vigilantes suck.  All they ever do is end up getting innocent people killed.  Bitchez.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:30 | 5016276 Sashko89
Sashko89's picture

So when will these guys turn around and march on Washington, and give Obama a Maidan for being a corrupt with the banker class) albeit, a bit more sophisticated then coktail molotovs, because I assume, no one will pressure Obama not to use force against peacefull protestors) 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:35 | 5016307 Liberal
Liberal's picture

Why do these evil white men want to hurt my future fellow liberals?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:04 | 5016387 401K of Dooom
401K of Dooom's picture

Because you hurt them, their families, their property and their pursuit of happiness.  Don't try to tell me that they are the sources of all evil in the world.  Take a llok at neighborhoods like Lexington MA. and Westport CT. and tell me if those are egalitarian communities.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:42 | 5016916 caShOnlY
caShOnlY's picture

I upped you for a good statement and would give you another uppy for a great name if I could.  

Try telling peeps that their 401(k) (and equivalent) is going to get sapped and they think you are mad and should be locked up!!!  That's stealing!! they tell me...... and I say thats Wall st.  See Bernie Madoff? they say exactly!!!!  I reply with "did Bacon and Sedgewick get their MILLIONS BACK?".......exactly!!   Punishment really doesn't matter after the crime is committed and your the victim of a massive financial loss. 

 just an omen of the big play coming soon!

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:44 | 5016920 Squiddly Diddly
Squiddly Diddly's picture

A better question: Why do these evil liberals hate white men and want to obfuscate the meaning of "a well regulated militia" ? *


* No tax dollars were expended to fund this statement.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:10 | 5019024 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Firstly, they are not liberals.  A liberal would be liberal.  These people are illiberal tyrants and tyrant-wannabes.  They push their memes in the effort to disarm the public so a true genocide can take place.  They are hateful, spiteful thugs.  They are the goose steppers of evil.  They have murdered over 100,000,000 people in the past 100 years.  They want to see you dead.  They will kill you once you cannot resist. 

These people are evil.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:47 | 5016922 Squiddly Diddly
Squiddly Diddly's picture


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:15 | 5016409 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

So far the illegals have killed a lot of people. The militia? Not so much. Why don't you quote some facts for a change instead of your limp wristed, pussy assed bullshit?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:32 | 5016442 MrTouchdown
MrTouchdown's picture

States NEVER gets any innocents killed. Oh wait

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:48 | 5016547 Dollarmedes
Dollarmedes's picture

Watch it...Batman is a vigilante.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:20 | 5017208 Lendo
Lendo's picture

Stop linking to your shitty blog before I send the NSA to take it down. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:13 | 5016866 SoDamnMad
SoDamnMad's picture

Wish we had guys like James Madison still around. Here in 1787, these statesmen foresaw the crap the current government has tried to pull on the nation and so, put down in writing in the Federalist Papers (46) on why Americans need to be armed. I am sure the Supreme Court can find a loophole to say none of this matters (seeing the Constitution has been  trampled as badly as it has).  I remember my old oath;  I, ..., swear t support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.  Foreign and domestic!!!  Yikes

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:49 | 5017077 Pee Wee
Pee Wee's picture

Thats Supreme Court Inc. to you.

The best "just-us" lawless money can buy.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:28 | 5017013 therover
therover's picture

Slave....Good clarification.

Too bad we don't have a well regulated government.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:21 | 5016252 ACP
ACP's picture

"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." is the Consitutional right.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the reason for the right.

Pretty simple.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:52 | 5016350 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:39 | 5016543 Kelley
Kelley's picture

Which part of this do you not understand?


  • the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, 

Every man in America who was alive when the Constitution was ratified owned one or more guns.

If the government decides the right to bear arms, then a dictatorship is sure to follow. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:40 | 5016811 agent default
agent default's picture

Have you noticed something about all the trolls we get lately? They have all been members for something like 10 to 15 weeks and they are totally and mindlessly spewing upsurd left wing crap at the rate of  a machinegun.  Have we been targeted by some NGO or some liberal organization or something?  Sure feels like it sometimes.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:15 | 5016869 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

The Internet Water Army will accept anyone.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:14 | 5016513 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Horseshit. Well regulated clearly describes/modifies the term militia. A collective that should be well regulated. The RTBA of people...individuals, is not to be infringed. This is 7th grade English.

In any case, RTBA supercedes any law of men, including the 2A

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:45 | 5016546 smackdog
smackdog's picture

Wrong.  You've been brainwashed into giving away your Bill of Rights.  You are brainwashed.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 03:52 | 5016642 Renewable Life
Renewable Life's picture

The fact that anyone is even debating this socialist, fucking lunatic, is empowering him!!
I had to deal with these armchair warriors, pseudo-intellectual, wanna be professor, half wits all day as a college student, and if you have your shit together, you'll fuck em up on the facts after going around and around for 6 hours in a Starbucks, only to have them eventually get up and walk off, not before mumbling "well that's your opinion man" or some horse shit like that!
The point is, their a bunch of brainwashed bullshitters who can't be bothered by the facts, common sense, or reality!! Wasting your time trying to "correct" or "educate" these douchbags, is just a waste of your valuable time and energy, that could be spent on something more useful IMO!

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:26 | 5016885 NoPension
NoPension's picture

Smartest comment here.
I fall for bait, again and again. I chalk it up to polishing my argument.
( not the same as waxing my carrot)

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:35 | 5016700 ebear
ebear's picture

"Most likely agent provocateurs under the DHS/FBI payroll"

The sad part of it is, they probably aren't.  Which is to say, you don't have to go to those lengths to discredit the movement, they're quite capable of doing that on their own.

Just look at them.

If this is a "well-regulated militia" where are the uniforms?  Where's the discipline?  If I came across these guys in a free fire zone, I wouldn't know whose side they were on.  If you're going to present yourself as something, you should at least try to look like it.  All these guys look like is King of the Hill gone bad.

You wait til the first guy kills someone and is facing federal charges, then see how long this "movement" lasts.

Understand, this does NOT make me a supporter of current US policy (or lack thereof).  I've just seen enough shit in my life to know these guys aren't it.  

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:38 | 5016751 TMLutas
TMLutas's picture

You're assuming that the article above is a truthful account. It's half truthful at best. The yahoo talking about pointing a gun at illegals and not worrying about international incidents basically got called out by the rest of the groups. They know that kind of thing is not helpful. They've got a centralized criminal background check operation going to try to keep the bad actors out which is a pretty smart thing to do and I'm glad they're doing it.

If you go to the linked article, you'll find a series of 70 photos. The most interesting one is number 4, where the militia are pictured coordinating with the border patrol. Somehow that didn't make it to this story. 

While there are some high spirits pictured in the series, it's nothing that I hadn't seen in photos coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade and frankly tamer than some of the stuff our actual men and women in uniform have photographed and landed on the Internet. So how do you tell that there's no discipline? I'm genuinely trying to figure out what you saw that I'm not seeing. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:35 | 5016901 ebear
ebear's picture

"The most interesting one is number 4, where the militia are pictured coordinating with the border patrol. Somehow that didn't make it to this story."

Neither did the one where their guy points a gun directly at the camera, but I notice a few of the flip-offs made it through.  Great PR.  That and Mr Halloween will win a lot of hearts and minds.

Man, you look at some of those guys and you just know they have camoflage pyjamas in case war breaks out in the middle of the night and they don't have time to gear up.  

I've had enough contact with people like this to know what I'm seeing.  Fucking lunatics, one and all.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:18 | 5019064 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

I would trust any of those guys to hold an ounce of gold for me over a politician, banker, lawyer, federal agent....

How about you?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:13 | 5016795 The Wizard
The Wizard's picture

"Well regulated" means there is an orderly and lawful structure is in place along with a plan for rules of engagement. Are responsible organized Citizens capable of this task? Wouldn't the government be using the same people, without government rules, to accomplish said task?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:47 | 5016821 A82EBA
A82EBA's picture

Dude, it's whatever we say it means..we're the ones with the guns, remember? We need a serious change in attitude and sense of personal right.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:21 | 5019086 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

More like, as we see in the picture, each man should have an appropriate weapon and gear.  What those are in any circumstance would be up to the militia to determine. 

Guarding the border calls for rifles and desert gear.  Sandbagging against a flood might call for raingear and no weapons at all.  Back when humans had commonsense this worked pretty well.  Today it seems that nobody wants to be responsible except those who are literally so incompetent they can do nothing else but read teleprompters and smile.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:44 | 5016818 A82EBA
A82EBA's picture

Fuck you, you'll be hunted down and eradicated like the virus you are

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:53 | 5016833 doctor10
doctor10's picture

That pesky 2nd Amendment thingy just won't go away. FYI-its there for precisely such situtations when government becomes far too more about itself than its taxpayers.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:55 | 5016834 gobsmack
gobsmack's picture

I logged in just to down vote this, you lying paid government troll. Fortunately the Supreme Court can read, most of them. The founders knew how to say army when they meant army and people when they meant people. Civil rights are not conferred at the discretion of the sovereign in the case of the 2d A any more than the 1st or 4th. That would undermine the security of a FREE state. You're not even worth the time spent on this brief comment so just fuck off, douchebag.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:07 | 5016855 caShOnlY
caShOnlY's picture

Moreover, the Second Amendment was never indented to give the right to ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms; instead, the Sovereign decides who qualifies for such privilege and the language of this amendment is extremely clear (except for those who don’t understand semantics)

what fucking part of "WE THE PEOPLE (of the United States of America)" do you just not understand?????????????

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:30 | 5016889 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

Why is it that every liberal turd tries to say that "The People" suddenly takes on a different meaning only in the second amendment of the constitution?


"The People" means the citizens.  The militia was defined at the time as "all able bodied men".

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:34 | 5016898 Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights's picture

Another fucken retard who just discovered the bill of rights. I'm sure this tool found Abortion and Gay marriage though.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:35 | 5016900 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Easily one of the most uninformed comments I have ever seen on this site. Which means that you undoubtedly have to work for a .gov.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:44 | 5016921 wtf1369
wtf1369's picture

Let me cut to the chase....



Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:53 | 5017046 Pee Wee
Pee Wee's picture

There is only one word to describe you - retarded.  These patriots fit your own definition.  Why don't you move elsewhere and preach your flaccid liberal rot if you don't like it.  ISIS is always recruiting comedians with sand in their vaginas.

Hopefully the number of actual patriots you see in these pictures grows exponentially, not just for illegals.   Wishful thinking says they can surround lawless DC, Fascist York, and Mexifornia by Thanksgiving.

Give em' hell!

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:08 | 5016204 tickhound
tickhound's picture

Do these guys have any drones? Could the first shot fired be against a militia drone? USMilitiaD "Sumpter" ? It'd be a strange international incident if no one got hurt as militia attempting to do some low level recon, if for no other reason than to take pictures and validate official stories.

Militia drone drives, dollars for drones, sells them in camo. Who's in charge of this thing!?!?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:17 | 5016207 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture



Rag-tag looking they may be.  But NO ONE else seems to want to guard our border.

OF COURSE Obie & Co. want to let in all of the illegals. *

That would include the gang-banger scum I saw at Drudge earlier.



* Undocumented Democrat Voters

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:22 | 5016254 EscapingProgress
EscapingProgress's picture

Fuck the border. Abolish all borders and nation states.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:49 | 5016344 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

"Fuck the border. Abolish all borders and nation states."

The U.S. border has already been effectively abolished under this POTUS yet big government continues to offer welfare entitlements to anyone who crosses the border? How long can that last?  

Every other country in the world enforces it's borders except this one. Countries that don't enforce their borders cease to exist. The NWO's plan for the U.S. is playing out right before our eyes? 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:51 | 5016351 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And taxes, and speed limits, and welfare and wealth redistribution.

But if we are going to keep all that shit then we better have some fucking borders.

I'm so pissed that the cut NASA funding. it was my one hope of escape of the fucking coming one world dictatorship of the "needy". I'm sure thats why they did it. none of us are getting out of here.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:06 | 5016391 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

"Fuck the border. Abolish all borders and nation states."

I agree - let the lice ridden Mexicans live in your house. YOU handle it. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:23 | 5016420 SF beatnik
SF beatnik's picture

How many people the world over would like to come here, given the chance?  Say. Obama were to provide free plane tickets.

Consider city of Lagos, many millions of people living in the most disgusting, unhygeinic  conditions. 

Common sense says that the more of the people we allow to settle here, the more the USA will come to look like the horrible slums of third world countries.

If that is what you want, move to Lagos or Rio or Mexico City. I would gladly pay more in federal taxes to cover the costs of your getting the fuck out of the USA.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:49 | 5016548 smackdog
smackdog's picture

You want to live like the savages in Mexico and Africa.  Rule by tribal decree?  No thanks.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 04:43 | 5016696 barre-de-rire
barre-de-rire's picture

ho, just before the word mexico i though you were talking about the USA.

Wed, 07/30/2014 - 11:12 | 5022679 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture


Rule by tribal decree?


Been there, doing that.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:20 | 5016879 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Strange, you don't advocate knocking down the walls of yer house/apartment...

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:23 | 5016421 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"Undocumented Democrats", that's fucking priceless.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:03 | 5016713 ebear
ebear's picture

"Rag-tag looking they may be"

Seriously?  That guy with the tatoos and death mask is pure psycho and there's a couple more that come close.

And that guy in the front dressed like a field commander?  Does he really think these guys will follow orders when the time comes?   Will he even be around to give any?

You want to see a well regulated Militia, go to Donestk or Lugansk.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 09:06 | 5017149 Seek_Truth
Seek_Truth's picture

Appearances mean nothing, it's what's inside that counts.

Many of your heroes on Lugansk and Donetsk are drunk, read the article about the journalists encounter on ZH.

Let me guess- you're from the UK, if not, the NE.

Amiright or am I right?

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 15:48 | 5019242 ebear
ebear's picture

I love the way you guys try to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you.  Fact is, I'm from a place so far from where you're at it may as well be Mars.

As for being drunk, check the beer guts on some of your heros.  At least the guys in Lugansk have an excuse, i.e. they don't know if their next fight will be their last.  Your guys won't even get a shot off WTSHTF.  Strutting around in cammo all brave and shit with their bring it attitude only puts a target on their backs.   You think the PTB don't know exactly who they are?  You think they don't have their own guys in there reporting back on everything seen and heard?

We do have one thing in common though.  A firm belief in the post-SHTF need to protect ourselves from maurading gangs.  We just differ on who we think those gangs are, and yeah you're completely right- appearances can be deceptive, but not in this case.  I know exactly what I'm looking at here.  When the MREs run out, it's MY shit these guys will be coming for - those that survive the drones, that is.  Well, alright MF's.  bring it on.   I'm a lot smarter than you and have prepared for multiple scenarios.  You only prepared for one, and it didn't include me.  Big mistake.

See?  I can talk tough shit on the internet too.  Isn't it fun?!


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:53 | 5017663 viahj
viahj's picture

i'd wager that most of these patriots are ex-military and police hence know more about discipline and duty than your plush brony ass.  if they were 'psycho' they would have joined the mercanary ranks of Blackwater/Xe or whatever they call themselves these days. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 16:11 | 5019385 ebear
ebear's picture

It's a bet you'd lose.  Frankly, I feel sorry for you molon labe guys.  Your hearts may be in the right place, but you're being completely misled and used.   The tragedy is, most will only find that out when it's too late.

Point is, in the post-SHTF world, you'll need guys like me a lot more than Capt. Kangaroo and Private Haloween over there.  Well, good luck finding us.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 03:07 | 5016559 The_Dude
The_Dude's picture

Nope....Obummer is working right now on moving the refugee processing to the Central American countries directly to bypass anyone being able to stem the flow.  People will be able to walk in to the local embassy and ask for refugee status directly and get a plane ticket to destination of their choice.  No being stopped by militias...straight to your neighborhood and the community teat....not sure if we could make it easier if we tried.

FYI...refugee status that Obummer is pushing for means gov aid for life....they can stay on as long as they need/want.  Here is Cali we have tons of SE asian immigrants still getting refugee aid 30+ years later....all working cash jobs driving BMWs, laughing at how dumb the Americans are for not figuring it out....

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:19 | 5016989 BustainMovealota
BustainMovealota's picture

You mean a bigger false flag is coming.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:32 | 5016743 monkeyboy
monkeyboy's picture


So is this like paint balling for realz???


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:41 | 5016813 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

knukles   Not until Obie orders the Border Patrol back to the border to protect the "innocent" illegals streaming across.


Why would it matter. All you have to do is claim you are an illigal and you get the Obama red carpet treatment. You might even get a free round of golf at Pebble Beach.

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:43 | 5016117 Four chan
Four chan's picture

thank god someone is doing something about our border.


Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:49 | 5016136 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm pretty sure the guy with the skeleton mask, camo cargo shorts, and semi-auto isn't an Angel.   

This is all about divide and conquer.  The multi-nationals are happy for the slave labor, the Blue Team wants the immigrant vote, and the Red Team wants the anti-immigrant vote, but it's about far more than that. 

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:07 | 5016181 knukles
knukles's picture

This could be ground conjured up however He might like it to by His AG, that what with these people threatening the Border Patrols, the TX National Guard having been called up by the Governor and not protecting the Border Patrol Agents, thereby allowing (aiding and abetting) the loose revolutionaries, who are thus armed, dangerous, and in opposition to the laws of the USA, declare them seditious and treasonous homegrown terrorists and order
1.) the TX NAt Guard up to Active Duty status, immediately demobilizing them, and ordering them to shelter in their homes. (house arrest)
2.) Call up the CENTCOM/NORCOM/US Army to arrest all the militia types, who are obviously dangerous armed insurgents, looking to kill and main the innocents seeking shelter in the US (Asylum, refugees under UN auspices)
3.) arrest all law enforcement officers (Sheriffs) allowing the militias free reign upon their areas for aiding and abetting treasonous and seditious actions
4.) In light of such, declare Martial Law

Can't make this shit up, folks


Also plays neatly into the DHS Meme of homegrown terorists, needs more crackdown upon guns, prepper foods, petroleum, travel, Internet, social media, whatever ....

You.  Yes, you.  Papers.  Paprers, Please.   

Directly after tonight's final reeducation class that ends at 2400 there will be a 3 hour rest period before the exam at 0300 hours.  Anyone failing will be digging his own grave with his bare hands, and the few remaining survivors will burying them alive.  Rest well, comrades

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:13 | 5016220 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture



Fuckin-a right, knukles.  A travesty of vast proportions.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:12 | 5016221 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I will go one step further and suggest that the pictures above are not coincidental.  Not blaming ZH for running the story, but MSM must demonize the guys who go out and try to secure the border.  A skeleton mask would do nicely.  And let's put a "don't tread on me" flag in there, too.  Excellent.

This is the beginning of something bigger.  I feel it.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:58 | 5016371 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Maybe instead of guns, if they fired random unguided missles across the border at civilian population centers they would gain more public sympathy......just sayin.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 06:46 | 5016820 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Oldwood    Maybe instead of guns, if they fired random unguided missles across the border at civilian population centers they would gain more public sympathy......just sayin


Up vote for you. After all, we stole this land from  Mexico just like Israel stole Philistine or Palestine land.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:34 | 5016537 Cobra
Cobra's picture

Let's add a soundtrack...

I consider those 'gun toting lunatics' my brothers, and I know I'm not alone.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 02:58 | 5016557 Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

On the other hand, these guys know they're enemies of the state, so of course they would hide their faces. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right though.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 08:52 | 5017099 fallout11
fallout11's picture

Another Hegelian dialectic in the making, straight out of the pages of Bernay's "Propaganda".

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:08 | 5016396 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

"I'm pretty sure the guy with the skeleton mask, camo cargo shorts, and semi-auto isn't an Angel."

You're pretty judgemental, based on appearances aren't you? 

I thought you liberals were supposed to be the open minded motherfuckers? WHat next - you going to judge people based on the color of their skin as well as what type of mask they wear?

You're a fucking pathetic joke.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:01 | 5016188 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

Since I love giving POTUS and OFA ammo (no pun intended) for another hate speech/email blast...

...let me recommend something for the boys


Tue, 07/29/2014 - 10:25 | 5017510 sleigher
Tue, 07/29/2014 - 05:03 | 5016715 ebear
ebear's picture

Better down there than living next door, I always say.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:35 | 5016899 NoPension
NoPension's picture

Or to borrow a line from .gov ;
Better to fight them there, than here.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 00:34 | 5016302 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Where are the GOP-e governors - Perry, Martinez and Brewer?  Cowards and traitors like the Dems and RINO socum.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 01:17 | 5016410 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

"Where are the GOP-e governors - Perry, Martinez and Brewer?  Cowards and traitors like the Dems and RINO socum."

Border control is an inherent power of the Federal Government. Ask Eric Holder. 

Texas Gov. Rick Perry activated up to 1,000 Texas National Guard troops on July 21st to aid border patrol authorities. Texas has already spent $500 million and expects to spend more than $1.3 million each week through the end of the year to secure the U.S. border--with no financial help from Washington. 

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government for failing to enforce the borders and for failing to reimburse the millions in costs for incarcerating illegals. 

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, whose grandparents came to the U.S. illegally, has publicly opposed illegal immigration but has done little to stop it.

Tue, 07/29/2014 - 07:47 | 5016925 Bossman1967
Bossman1967's picture

They are busy being baby sitters for the undocumented immigrants. Wtf we cant even call them what they are any more?illegal aliens period end of story.if your gonna spend 2.8 billion I say move the gators from Louisiana and florida and put them in to the river and fly drones that will shoot dead anyone coming over. It would stop real quick but then that would make me a racist right even though I am not.

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:41 | 5016100 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

First of all, I wonder if the dipshit in the cute face mask knows he can be identified by his tattoos?

Secondly, remember, as RP once said, a fence secure enough to keep them out is secure enough to keep you in.

What we really need is property rights.

Mon, 07/28/2014 - 23:45 | 5016128 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

So he is going to be arrested for enforcing his property rights ?


 This is going to give a lot of unemployed american men something to do.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!