View Full Version : The rise of Militia membership.
All,
There has been a rise in the membership and number of groups forming up in the "Militia". Economy, political unrest, uncertainty of many kinds has been the impetus in the increase.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias
Got yer membership yet? :meeting:
Well, no militia membership for me. I'm going to continue to work with the system through voting, donating money to the organizations and politicians I support, and write my representatives as often as I can.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 12:34
I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say that Mark Potok and the SPLC can tongue the underside of my balls after a long run on a hot day.
All the "militia" members combined don't begin to do 1/10th of the damage done every day by illegals to this country.
And while we are on the subject, it saddens me greatly that a term like "militia" has had a negative connotation successfully associated with it. There was a time when it was analogous to volunteer fireman.
It's just another scary term like "assault weapon".
Oh no, it's those same 4 guys doing their weekly target practice together (they must be in a militia) with their Colt 6920's (assault weapons).
Fear mongering.
All I will say on the subject (second paragraph is all you need to see really...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html
Mauser KAR98K
03-08-12, 13:25
All I will say on the subject (second paragraph is all you need to see really...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html
yet, they wonder why militias are on the rise?
Doc Safari
03-08-12, 13:29
Normally, I would dismiss this as left-wing fearmongering. The militias were a convenient target to increase Democrat fundraising during the Clinton years. I always considered them a joke: an excuse to drink beer more than anything else.
However, since this administration is sending the IRS out to collect the names, addresses, and all personal information possible about Tea Party members, I am genuinely beginning to think that an Enemies List is being drawn up for administering that legenday "world of hurt" after the November elections.
They are also beginning to monitor opposition on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Anybody that opposes these people is in the crosshairs.
deadlyfire
03-08-12, 14:34
The 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. How is this scary or a surprise to anyone.
Instead of speculating lets regulate the growth of militias so the government can't sit there and guess what these radicals are up to.
Moose-Knuckle
03-08-12, 15:33
Hmmm. . .
Well IF this atricle has any truth to it, combined with recent legislation, and network TV programs like Nag Geo's Doomsday Preppers and Discovery's Doomsday Bunkers that are propaganda for the left then I surmise that it is only a matter of time before Holder starts using tricks out of Reno's playbook.
Doc Safari
03-08-12, 15:43
Hmmm. . .
Well IF this atricle has any truth to it, combined with recent legislation, and network TV programs like Nag Geo's Doomsday Preppers and Discovery's Doomsday Bunkers that are propaganda for the left then I surmise that it is only a matter of time before Holder starts using tricks out of Reno's playbook.
Fast & Furious didn't work. Gotta find another program, right?
The SPLC is a huge money scam that preys on "white guilt" and ignorance. As an example:
In one case cited by Mr. Silverstein, Morris Dees won a judgment for a black woman whose son was killed by Klansmen. She received $51,875 as settlement. Mr. Dees, according to an investigation by the Montgomery Advertiser, pulled in $9 million from fund-raising solicitation letters that featured a particularly gruesome photograph of the grieving mother's son. Mr. Dees, who pays himself an annual salary of $275,000, offered the grieving mother none of the $9 million her son's death made for him.
ETA & FYI - Oath Keepers were labeled a hate group by the SPLC.
More...
In an article entitled "The Church of Morris Dees" in the November 2000 issue of Harper's magazine Ken Silverstein noted that the SPLC spends such a high percentage of its revenue on salaries, perks, and fundraising that "The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst rankings of any [nonprofit] group it monitors." That, I suppose, is how it was able to move into its new palatial headquarters building in Montgomery, Alabama that is known locally as the "Poverty Palace."
All of this is undoubtedly why leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote in the New York Press in 2007 that "I've long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying mostly low-income contributors into unbolting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than $100 million . . ."
The SPLC is a huge money scam that preys on "white guilt" and ignorance. As an example:
ETA & FYI - Oath Keepers were labeled a hate group by the SPLC.
More...
Do you have any links for the latter quotes, Irish? My MIL is a big SPLC fan, and I'd love to explain to her why she shouldn't drink the kool-aid.
Can you cite a source for the latter quote, Irish? My MIL is a big SPLC fan, and I'd love to explain to her why she shouldn't drink the kool-aid.
Sure thing. The actual quote is from a Thomas DiLorenzo article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo209.html) and a copy of the first Harper's article can be read here (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html). A copy of the 2nd article quoted can be read here ( http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2642)
This (http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/) is probably the best article I've read on the SPLC titled "King of the hate business". The SPLC preys on white guilt and the ignorant, not stupid, but people who are ignorant of the fact that it's a money making machine.
Sure thing. The actual quote is from a Thomas DiLorenzo article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo209.html) and a copy of the first Harper's article can be read here (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html). The copy of the 2nd can be read here ( http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2642)
This (http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/) is probably the best article I've read on the SPLC titled "King of the hate business".
Thanks!
Thanks!
Absolutely. If you only wanted to pass along 1 article I'd recommend the last one. Of course reading the others would help substantiate the points made in the 4th but it makes for a lot of reading for most people.
ETA - One of the biggest problems with the SPLC's "Intelligence Report" is countless many police and federal agencies use it like it were factual documentation rather than the tripe that it really is. Here's a link (http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism/law-enforcement/law-enforcement-training) to their "Law Enforcement Training".
The SPLC defines the "patriot" movement as made up of conspiracy-minded individuals who see the federal government as their primary enemy. The movement includes paramilitary militias as well as groups of "sovereign citizens," who believe they are not subject to federal or state laws, nor obligated to pay federal taxes, according to SPLC.
This is the most interesting paragraph to me. I'd say that most of us don't see the Federal Govt as our friend or benefactor, but it's also not our enemy. We also feel that many federal and state laws are unconstitutional, but we obey them to the best of our abilities. Finally, we don't mind paying some federal taxes, just not 1/3 of our income and we want that money spent wisely.
GeorgiaBoy
03-08-12, 17:54
The reason militias have such a negative connotation is because people envision in their minds a bunch of far right possibly religious extremists running around in the woods with AK's and AR-15's. (which a lot of them are)
We already have a state run militia, it's called the national guard and most people can volunteer to join. I'm not saying guys shooting guns together and working on tactics is a militia (it's not), but larger groups of people grouping together calling themselves a militia and often for odd reasons is a lot of times a warning for a possibly dangerous group.
The country is a different place than it was in the 1700's. Today we have large police forces, a standing army, and the national guard. Militias had a purpose then, not today. They were used as a quick police force of the local community to control uprisings and chaos.
Dont worry everyone, they are just paving the way to use the NDAA....the way it was intended to be used. (Just go look at the Patriot Act sec. 802, then read the NDAA sec 1021-22)
No i'm not apart of a militia because i dont want to be black bagged and sent to gitmo indefinitently (or maybe up to Hardin, MT) lol
We already have a state run militia, it's called the national guard and most people can volunteer to join.
Problem is, not everyone wants to be packed up & sent to Assholistan for however long the welfare messiah determines is your turn. If the guard was actually a state militia & was only used for that purpose I would agree, but it's not. Our state militias have become nothing more than US Army reserves with older equipment.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 19:21
The 2A guarantees the states' right to form militias. "Militias" formed by groups of people are not guaranteed by the constitution.
The reason militias have such a negative connotation is because people envision in their minds a bunch of far right possibly religious extremists running around in the woods with AK's and AR-15's. (which a lot of them are)
We already have a state run militia, it's called the national guard and most people can volunteer to join. I'm not saying guys shooting guns together and working on tactics is a militia (it's not), but larger groups of people grouping together calling themselves a militia and often for odd reasons is a lot of times a warning for a possibly dangerous group.
The country is a different place than it was in the 1700's. Today we have large police forces, a standing army, and the national guard. Militias had a purpose then, not today. They were used as a quick police force of the local community to control uprisings and chaos.
The National Guard is not the militia. It is funded and controlled by the federal government.
Moose-Knuckle
03-08-12, 19:22
No i'm not apart of a militia because i dont want to be black bagged and sent to gitmo indefinitently (or maybe up to Hardin, MT) lol
Now you have gone and done it. Pay close attention to the "lone wolf" verbiage in some of these bills.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 19:23
Now you have gone and done it. Pay close attention to the "lone wolf" verbiage in some of these bills.
Ayup.
Now you have gone and done it. Pay close attention to the "lone wolf" verbiage in some of these bills.
Oh i know. Nobody is safe, its easy to trump up b.s.
Those that join militia just put a sign on their back that reads "hey look over here".
(I also sense the undertone in your reply, hinting that im not joining a militia because i'm some sort of "lone wolf", which for the record couldnt be farther from the truth)
All,
There has been a rise in the membership and number of groups forming up in the "Militia". Economy, political unrest, uncertainty of many kinds has been the impetus in the increase.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias
Got yer membership yet? :meeting:
I see what they're doing there.... Trotting out the ol' fear and terror-inducing scapegoat stereotypes that everyone already knows are "dangerous individuals" so as soon as the term "domestic terrorist" is so much as whispered, we'll all throw ourselves on the mercy of our wise and benevolent gov. to take any and all needed measures to save us from....
well, apparently a bunch of old geezers....:rolleyes:
Cute.
:angry:
All I will say on the subject (second paragraph is all you need to see really...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html
Another on that note here http://www.naturalnews.com/035184_Eric_Holder_American_citizens_murder.html#ixzz1oYdxI51I
Yay, America.
(Yes, I may be a little off base here- but damn....)
Plenty of history on the Militia to stoke fearmongering. Remember Oklahoma City in April of 1995?? That is just one example.
All,
There has been a rise in the membership and number of groups forming up in the "Militia". Economy, political unrest, uncertainty of many kinds has been the impetus in the increase.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias
Got yer membership yet? :meeting:
this is an outright lie to manipulate people.
there is no evidience (or even any indications) of "militias" on the rise or forming at all.
learn to recognize a lie and propaganda. a good way to know is if you hear almost ANYTHING on the TV news networks or on the radio. those are strictly lies tied together with some truths to make them believable. It REALLY is that bad now.
crusader377
03-09-12, 11:37
All,
There has been a rise in the membership and number of groups forming up in the "Militia". Economy, political unrest, uncertainty of many kinds has been the impetus in the increase.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias
Got yer membership yet? :meeting:
This is just more hype about a non-existent threat. Basically you probably 100 times more likely to die from an illegal alien which our government has done nothing about than from an aledged militia member.
Maybe MSNBC should write about the grave threat of bee stings which kill far more people than militias ever had.:rolleyes:
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-09-12, 11:44
As much as I am ashamed to admit it, the mere mention of "militia" scares the life out of me these days. Papa Washington wouldnt be proud.
The National Guard in Georgia is not a militia. Georgia has a State Defense Force , which is probably closer to the definition of a militia.
As much as I am ashamed to admit it, the mere mention of "militia" scares the life out of me these days. Papa Washington wouldnt be proud.
Logically, it's perfectly understandable. Ideologically, it's a shame.
The National Guard in Georgia is not a militia. Georgia has a State Defense Force , which is probably closer to the definition of a militia.
No government entity could ever be the Constitutional militia. Regardless of the Dick Act, the entire point of a militia is that it is NOT affiliated with the government.
GeorgiaBoy
03-09-12, 21:14
The point still boils down to the fact that militias have no purpose in TODAY'S society.
At the time of ratification, militias were a lot more important. Police forces (which were small and disorganized) generally didn't have firearms. There was no standing army. There was no national guard. There had to be some way to be able to enforce law and crush rebellions, or to defend the country in time for a larger army to be created. The militia right therefore created as more of a reserve military force, as most people at the time were leery of standing armies. (The saw what Britain did)
Today "militias" are created out of spite "because we can".
deadlyfire
03-09-12, 21:34
Sounds like the "common sense" rhetoric that was used for the machine gun ban.
No point, so why have it. Same goes for the rest of our amendments.
GeorgiaBoy
03-09-12, 22:15
Sounds like the "common sense" rhetoric that was used for the machine gun ban.
No point, so why have it. Same goes for the rest of our amendments.
Alright, since I have always had a knack for the Revolutionary War time period and its history, I'll bite.
This has always been, and probably always will be, my interpretation of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," This phrase starts off the amendment. Its purpose is quite clear in that it clearly insists that for a state (country) to be secure and free, it must have a militia, or fighting force, for itself. This amendment protects the rights of both the states, and the nation itself to maintain a militia. During this time period and before it, a "militia" was generally a small group (10-50 men) of a community that were used in a variety of ways. The could be used as an emergency law enforcement force in times of need that the regular LE officers were not able to cope with, crush rebellions that formed (Such as the Whiskey Rebellion), or to defend the state in case of an invasion (after the Rev. War). This remained the status quo until the War of 1812, when standing armies became more acceptable and possible. Thus, the role of militias as a front line defense force to defend the country faded, as the regular government-controlled Armed Forces took over this duty. Local militias were still used for some time, later in the 1800's, for the first two reasons (such as Posse's to track down criminals), but even this faded out in the latter part of the 19th century as larger police forces more capable of handling matters came into being.
So, therefore, the role of the militias by the founder's intents is NOT the same as seen today. Militias then had a purpose, and the served it well. At the time, standing armies were unheard of, and the militia is was essentially the armed forces. Today, since we have full time standing armies, they virtually have become the "militia", as the perform the same duties as the original militias performed.
HOWEVER, do NOT confuse what I think about the first clause ties into the second clause. The second clause has little to do with the first, in my opinion. While the first keeps the right of the ability to have militias and to rise a unified armed force, the second explicitly guarantees the right of the People themselves, individually, not connected with armed services, to possess firearms. This is something that the founders cared much about, and to them is a necessity for any free person.
This makes the second part far more important the first. Why do you need militias, since there are already enough forces capable of handling everything they were originally intended to handle, if everyone can already possess a firearm? Everyone in America is part of the embedded "militia", and if it came down too it we all would also be the front line of defense to protect this country from a foreign nation. I could care less if a group of people want to run around in the woods and play with guns as if they think they are actually preparing to do something "militialike"; more power to them. But they are just wasting ammo in my opinion.
QuietShootr
03-09-12, 23:17
Alright, since I have always had a knack for the Revolutionary War time period and its history, I'll bite.
This has always been, and probably always will be, my interpretation of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," This phrase starts off the amendment. Its purpose is quite clear in that it clearly insists that for a state (country) to be secure and free, it must have a militia, or fighting force, for itself. This amendment protects the rights of both the states, and the nation itself to maintain a militia. During this time period and before it, a "militia" was generally a small group (10-50 men) of a community that were used in a variety of ways. The could be used as an emergency law enforcement force in times of need that the regular LE officers were not able to cope with, crush rebellions that formed (Such as the Whiskey Rebellion), or to defend the state in case of an invasion (after the Rev. War). This remained the status quo until the War of 1812, when standing armies became more acceptable and possible. Thus, the role of militias as a front line defense force to defend the country faded, as the regular government-controlled Armed Forces took over this duty. Local militias were still used for some time, later in the 1800's, for the first two reasons (such as Posse's to track down criminals), but even this faded out in the latter part of the 19th century as larger police forces more capable of handling matters came into being.
So, therefore, the role of the militias by the founder's intents is NOT the same as seen today. Militias then had a purpose, and the served it well. At the time, standing armies were unheard of, and the militia is was essentially the armed forces. Today, since we have full time standing armies, they virtually have become the "militia", as the perform the same duties as the original militias performed.
HOWEVER, do NOT confuse what I think about the first clause ties into the second clause. The second clause has little to do with the first, in my opinion. While the first keeps the right of the ability to have militias and to rise a unified armed force, the second explicitly guarantees the right of the People themselves, individually, not connected with armed services, to possess firearms. This is something that the founders cared much about, and to them is a necessity for any free person.
This makes the second part far more important the first. Why do you need militias, since there are already enough forces capable of handling everything they were originally intended to handle, if everyone can already possess a firearm? Everyone in America is part of the embedded "militia", and if it came down too it we all would also be the front line of defense to protect this country from a foreign nation. I could care less if a group of people want to run around in the woods and play with guns as if they think they are actually preparing to do something "militialike"; more power to them. But they are just wasting ammo in my opinion.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llorqst7A61qdlpak.gif
Alright, since I have always had a knack for the Revolutionary War time period and its history, I'll bite.
This has always been, and probably always will be, my interpretation of the Second Amendment
Probably one of the better articulated reasons for the 2nd Amendment that I've heard.
When I saw the link MSNBC
I knew what the propaganda would be like !
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llorqst7A61qdlpak.gif
You made me squirt coffee out of my nose. :sarcastic:
GeorgiaBoy
03-10-12, 11:06
Of course I get slammed. Oh well. You have to understand the time period too understand the amendment.
deadlyfire
03-10-12, 12:21
Very funny GIF!
I agree with the fact that militias have indeed lost their relevance. What I don't agree with is the trend of attacking our amendments at every opportunity.
As you said GeorgiaBoy, if they want to go play in the woods with multicam and volunteer for search parties and host the county bingo, that's fine with me.
All the "militia" members combined don't begin to do 1/10th of the damage done every day by illegals to this country.
And while we are on the subject, it saddens me greatly that a term like "militia" has had a negative connotation successfully associated with it. There was a time when it was analogous to volunteer fireman.
All in the plan to portray those who like black rifles evil, and those who are in milias as goverment take over crazies, and last those who prep as doomsdayers. I agree with you, it truely is sad as how they have taken things and made minds instantly think of evil nut cases, when certain terms are used.
The country is a different place than it was in the 1700's. Today we have large police forces, a standing army, and the national guard. Militias had a purpose then, not today. They were used as a quick police force of the local community to control uprisings and chaos.
So your saying if the Fed Gov starts to run amuck, the local police and the National Guard and the standing army is going to be ones to stop them? Since the NG can be called out by the Pres and supersedes the Gov that knocks it out. Local PD get rolled by Federal LEOs and the standing Army is under the command of the POTUS.......... anyone else thinking Fox guarding the Hen House here?
QuietShootr
03-10-12, 22:14
So your saying if the Fed Gov starts to run amuck, the local police and the National Guard and the standing army is going to be ones to stop them? Since the NG can be called out by the Pres and supersedes the Gov that knocks it out. Local PD get rolled by Federal LEOs and the standing Army is under the command of the POTUS.......... anyone else thinking Fox guarding the Hen House here?
Wasting your breath.
GeorgiaBoy
03-10-12, 22:41
So your saying if the Fed Gov starts to run amuck, the local police and the National Guard and the standing army is going to be ones to stop them? Since the NG can be called out by the Pres and supersedes the Gov that knocks it out. Local PD get rolled by Federal LEOs and the standing Army is under the command of the POTUS.......... anyone else thinking Fox guarding the Hen House here?
You're actually not wasting your breath, to the contrary of Mr. Quietshooter.
Do you think that a few local "militias" are going to do any good against a Fed Gov run amuck? Besides the unlikelihood of the entire Army and Federal LE becoming tyrants, if that was the case it would be the responsibility of all firearm owners in general to take back the government. In essence, we all become the "militia" in times of need. That's the important part of the second clause.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” - Richard Henry Lee
“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” - George Mason
And on that note, most of you that criticize my interpretation of the second amendment probably believe strongly in our Armed Forces. You do realize the founders HATED standing armies, right?
Actually there is USC that deals with "militia"
Basically any male in the US over 17 who is not in the national guard or naval militia is part of the unorganized militia
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
(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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I think to understand what GeorgiaBoy is saying about the 2A (ignoring the militia explanation) this quote might be of interest
Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? – Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor
http://www.americanrevival.org/quotes/2a.htm
--
CarlosDJackal
03-11-12, 10:52
I wish they would stop misusing the term "Militia". Just like nowadays the term "Snipers" has come to mean some nutcase with a rifle who shoots anyone they can from a rooftap of car's trunk; Militia is now being associated to extreme right wing nutcases.
QuietShootr
03-11-12, 18:17
I'm watching The Patriot, and it occurs to me that there are a lot of things that are very dependent on where you're sitting. I'm trying to imagine what this movie would look like if it were made from an English point of view.
Belmont31R
03-11-12, 18:20
The War of 1812 is a good example of why we have the system today that we do.
Basically we did have a standing army but it was small and ill trained. When the British landed we could not repel them. The militia was largely ineffective.
After the War of 1812 it was apparent that having a small military while relying on 'citizen soldiers' was not going to work.
A militia (capital M if you want) IS state sponsored and regulated. Section 1-8 is filled with Congressional powers over the militia and military forces.
If you want to help out locally look into becoming a reserve deputy, many counties having volunteer SAR programs if someone goes missing, and there are different programs all over the country to do stuff in at least a semi official capacity. You don't have to join the NG to help your state, and most of these programs are on a volunteer basis so you're not going to get in trouble for not showing up at a moments notice.
Last...calling every band of rednecks and separatists a militia is stupid, and is only done to stoke fear mongering among the general population. They are not militias because they are not state sponsored nor regulated.
The reason militias have such a negative connotation is because people envision in their minds a bunch of far right possibly religious extremists running around in the woods with AK's and AR-15's. (which a lot of them are)
You got that right.
We already have a state run militia, it's called the national guard and most people can volunteer to join.
Better check this part again.
GeorgiaBoy
03-11-12, 19:57
Good reference to Article 1, Section 8 Belmont.
"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 Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Look guys, HERE's some facts on this report.
1- it's mostly a lie and being overblown by the media in persuit of some agenda
2-I looked up SOME the organizations listed in Montana, heres what I found
-5 of the "groups" listed were county level constitution party organizations. of the ones I recognized I believe there are maybe 5 people actively involved and they are genuine political activists not a militia.
-one "group" has not been a group since the 90's and now must be just the one guy. He sells mostly Paladin Press books among others (nothing nefarious or questionable) at gunshows on the weekend and builds log homes during the week. He also gives my dog fig newtons, which must make my dog a member as well, but I dont recall the dog ever going to any meetings or plotting anything other than chasing cats and gophers. perhaps that was "just practice" for his eventual overthrow of the government.
-One of the "hate groups" they listed is actually the name of a compilation CD of pro-white songs and not even the name of a band or organization AT ALL.
3- those were ALL of the ones I actually checked and had maybe even heard of. the rest were out of state groups they listed for almost every state.
fact of the matter is that there IS NO rise in "militia" membership, and there is next to no "militas" at all.
as to law and the legality of militias... my thought is WHO CARES!! if you want to be a bastion against tyranny then go learn how to shoot your gun and protect your family then get involved in your states' and towns' politics and forget the crap that happens at the federal level. it just doesn't matter and is just a diversion from what really makes a difference. If you can build up your states ability to function by itself then it wont matter what happens federally.
my $.02
I wish they would stop misusing the term "Militia". Just like nowadays the term "Snipers" has come to mean some nutcase with a rifle who shoots anyone they can from a rooftap of car's trunk; Militia is now being associated to extreme right wing nutcases.
The term Militia as it applies right wing separatists is really just another ethnic gang or organized crime syndicate. Just like the Italians have the Mafia and the Salvadorans/Hispanics have MS13, the white rednecks have the Militia. Unfortunately, a number of non-separatist rednecks (including yours truly) get labeled as being part of the Militia just like my mother thinks that every black hoodlem is a Crip or a Blood.
So far, guys that shoot and practice in street clothing alone or with a friend, and take a class here and there have slipped pass the militia label. I think if your shooting group is larger than 3 and you all dress up in full battle garb, the nomenclature applies. At least in a trendy libs eyes.
QuietShootr
03-13-12, 07:19
This is a really excellent example of the principle that he who controls the language controls the debate. THEY know what it is they don't like, and yet here we sit arguing over nomenclature. They're trying to give the same emotionally-charged meaning to the word 'militia' as they've done to 'racist' or 'smoker' or 'gun owner'. And from what I can see here, it's working.
The National Guard is not the militia. It is funded and controlled by the federal government.
This, nailed it. In theory the Natl. Guard COULD be a state militia, in practice it has been co-opted by the federal govt.
I'm not a member of a militia and have no plans to join one. However as a couple have said, a militia is not inherently a bad thing. Remember the 2nd amendment?
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.
The question, of course, is: What should a militia BE, in OUR time? Is it a bunch of crazies running around in the hills playing mall ninja? Is it the Natl. Guard? Or could something more fitting to the original idea be organized, without the negative connotations. I don't know, but I think "militia" is an idea that still has a place, perhaps under a different name since the media have hijacked this word so that in the mind of the sheeple, it is almost synonymous with 'extremists with guns.'
The question, of course, is: What should a militia BE, in OUR time? Is it a bunch of crazies running around in the hills playing mall ninja? Is it the Natl. Guard? Or could something more fitting to the original idea be organized, without the negative connotations. I don't know, but I think "militia" is an idea that still has a place, perhaps under a different name since the media have hijacked this word so that in the mind of the sheeple, it is almost synonymous with 'extremists with guns.'
You do realize that the vast majority of people probably consider your average carbine class to be what you just described.
QuietShootr
03-13-12, 11:47
You do realize that the vast majority of people probably consider your average carbine class to be what you just described.
We have members HERE who consider a carbine class to be what you just described.
You do realize that the vast majority of people probably consider your average carbine class to be what you just described.
Yep, agree that in SOME of the public's minds, even HAVING a firearm--particularly something in the AR/M4 FOW--is synonymous with being an extremist.
GeorgiaBoy
03-13-12, 19:53
People can interpret the Constitution anyway they want. There is no "one way";even the authors disagreed and took forever to come up with compromises.
The founders, who had actually written the Constitution itself, were arguing less than 30 years later on what it actually allowed and disallowed. (Such as in Marbury v. Madison)
I will stand behind my belief that a group of guys with guns can call themselves a "militia" all they want, but they are not.
To quote John Adams: "The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
And time for a standing army quote: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry
You can't have militias with standing armies. If you want their to be a surge of militias again, then get rid of standing armies. But you can't, so the debate on militias ended long ago. Two can't exist at once. Get over it. The war of militias is lost. The last resort is that WE, meaning all gun owners, ARE the militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. - George Mason
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. - George Mason
+1
An American, not serving with the official military, but still trained in the use of arms for the defense of himself, his family, and his community, is militia/sheriffs posse/minuteman.
During the civil rights movement in some parts of the south there were black militias that would show up at the polls during elections in order to stave off voter intimidation.
During the civil rights movement in some parts of the south there were black militias that would show up at the polls during elections in order to stave off voter intimidation.
And now we have this...
http://wolf.house.gov/images/user_images/New_Black_Panther_Party.jpg
QuietShootr
03-14-12, 08:08
And now we have this...
http://wolf.house.gov/images/user_images/New_Black_Panther_Party.jpg
Now...(this is a rhetorical question) I wonder what would happen if I decided to show up to a polling place geared up to ensure that white people weren't intimidated by uniformed blacks with clubs?
Doc Safari
03-14-12, 08:49
Now...(this is a rhetorical question) I wonder what would happen if I decided to show up to a polling place geared up to ensure that white people weren't intimidated by uniformed blacks with clubs?
You mean confront people like the ones in the photo?
You have the beginnings of Civil War II, which is exactly where this country is headed.
I can't even talk civilly to liberals anymore. My best friend of 25+ years lately talks like some kind of loon raised on another planet.
The divide in this country is getting to be so obvious, with no compromise on either side, that I do not see the USA surviving this century without another civil war.
All it's going to take is for one group of assholes to go full retard like the guy that shot up the civilians in A-stan, and it's on, brother.
Hopefully not in my lifetime.
Although I certainly don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says, I do believe he is correct when he warns people that the left is trying to provoke something so they can crack down.
30 cal slut
03-14-12, 12:46
I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say that Mark Potok and the SPLC can tongue the underside of my balls after a long run on a hot day.
Well said. :sarcastic:
Absolutely. If you only wanted to pass along 1 article I'd recommend the last one. Of course reading the others would help substantiate the points made in the 4th but it makes for a lot of reading for most people.
ETA - One of the biggest problems with the SPLC's "Intelligence Report" is countless many police and federal agencies use it like it were factual documentation rather than the tripe that it really is. Here's a link (http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism/law-enforcement/law-enforcement-training) to their "Law Enforcement Training".
This. Anytime someone in my agency or at a LE seminar uses SPLC designations as a talking point, I always ask "Do we have this information from any reliable sources?".
The National Guard is not the militia. It is funded and controlled by the federal government.
And this. I'd never join the nasty guard so long as it's controlled by the well meaning but foolish federal gov't. I might be persuaded to join a state organized militia that only held allegiance and service to the state.
I keep looking for these "rising" militias, but I believe it's simply more fear mongering from the left. I attend my regional Urban Area Security Initiative and Terrorism Early Warning group meetings monthly. I've yet to hear this information at the meetings, which to me is a good indicator that it isn't happening.
CarlosDJackal
03-14-12, 15:19
...The question, of course, is: What should a militia BE, in OUR time? Is it a bunch of crazies running around in the hills playing mall ninja? Is it the Natl. Guard? Or could something more fitting to the original idea be organized, without the negative connotations. I don't know, but I think "militia" is an idea that still has a place, perhaps under a different name since the media have hijacked this word so that in the mind of the sheeple, it is almost synonymous with 'extremists with guns.'
IMHO, some of the above. When under the command of their State's Governor, the National Guard is the "Organized Militia". Unfortunately, this is not so when they fall under "Title 10" or are Federalized. The question is, can National Guard units refuse Federalization? Can the Governor of a State tell the POTUS to pound sand if his State's "Organized Militia" has been selected to be put under tit;e 10 orders in order to conduct operations that are not legal based on Posse Comutatus?
Everyone else who is not a convicted Felon and is not a member of an organization that is criminal or anti-American in nature (IE: kkk, aryan brotherhood, ms-13, bloods, crips, naacp, aclu, communist party, etc.) are automatically members of the "Unorganized Militia".
The oldest "Organized Militia" in the US is the Saint Mary's Militia which was organized by Spanish Settlers in 1634.
And now we have this...
http://wolf.house.gov/images/user_images/New_Black_Panther_Party.jpg
Winning!
All it's going to take is for one group of assholes to go full retard like the guy that shot up the civilians in A-stan, and it's on, brother.
Hopefully not in my lifetime.
Although I certainly don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says, I do believe he is correct when he warns people that the left is trying to provoke something so they can crack down.
Yep. I don't listen to Glenn Beck and didn't know he said that, but this has been the general consensus of alot of right wing gun owning friends of mine for a while. The liberals want people to step out of line, they want big ugly incidents that they can put the camera in front of, they want people to get hurt so they can push their agenda.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.