[ExI] Running up against energy limits

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 08:26, spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat
>
> >…The people who stormed Congress believing they were upholding freedom
> and the Constitution called themselves a militia and qualified as such…
>
>
>
> Some of them were part of the militia, others were not.  That some called
> themselves A militia tells you what you need to know.
>
>
>
> >… according to the definition you gave…
>
>
>
> I gave the legal definition of the militia (singular.)  Private
> definitions are irrelevant to me.
>
>
>
> >… It was only the women and older men among them who did not qualify.
>
> --
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>
>
>
> Irrelevant.  The reason we have the militia (singular) is to protect the
> USA from any group of people calling themselves a militia or militias
> (plural) as well as any other bad actors.  We, the militia, are many, and
> we are well armed, which is why I wasn’t the least bit concerned about the
> people who stormed congress.
>
>
>
> The people who stormed the capital were not armed.  The cap police were
> armed.  That should tell you something.  There were two fatalities: one
> protestor was trampled, another was shot by capital police.
>
So the only reason the people who stormed Congress did not qualify fir the
legal definition of a militia is that they were not armed? Or is it more
the fact that they weren’t really upholding freedom and the constitution
that is the problem? But they believed that they were; who decides if they
are wrong?

> --
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210914/d6821694/attachment.htm>