You will kindly note that I prefaced my question on there being a functional democracy, not a state in which the legislature and the judiciary acts against the people. That you would chose to kill fellow citizens acting on behalf of upholding the laws of the nation rather than surrender your weapons and then test the constitutionality of the legislation before the courts speaks volumes.
Do you honestly believe that you represent the citizens despite your not being democrtically elected and despite the general public’s concern over militia.
Hi Mike…fellow citizen of St. Paris and Champaign County here…what are some of the pressing local issues that the militia group are concerned with?
Also…are you officially known to the SPPD or UPD?..and have you any agreement in place to assist the SPPD or UPD in time of need?
Did you guys have a booth at Pony Wagon Days?..how about the fair? What do you guys do to get the word out to the citizens of Champaign County about the existance and good works of your group?
On a tangent: who (do you think) has the best pizza in St. Paris?
Actually, it’s not. The Constitution provides for the Congress to ratify treaties, thus making them law. Come to think of it, it also provides for the federal government’s control and regulation of the militia.
It’s my impression most militia members are not enthusiastic about the USA/Patriot Act and Homeland Security Department. While we understand the purpose, we also believe they can be easily abused.
Most (all?) militia members are staunch supports of gun rights. The ACLU is not.
If one is to ignore the Oklahoma bombing and other such terrorist acts committed by individuals holding the belief that they are protecting against the evils of the government, one is still left with militia acting offensively in the role of domestic terrorists. Your statement that militia act defensively rather than offensively is simply not true. The best that could be said is that some militia are active terrorists, and that some militia are terrorists in the wings.
No, but as previously stated, they’re certainly welcome. However, I do know of some other militias with female members. There’s a militia up around Lake Erie that is run by a female…
Ages run from about 25 to 60.
I’m not aware of any so-called “undercover” members. But then again, how would I know? Personally, I think it would be a waste of time for them to go to all the trouble of being undercover, since I would have not problem with FBI or BATF folks observing our training sessions, or even participating with us.
Muffin: Please do not lump us in with those nut cases. And if you don’t mind, I would rather not use this thread to debate my beliefs and my justification for being involved in the militia. The thread’s original purpose was for me to simply answer questions about the militia.
I do not know why this was moved to GD, but I don’t care. There have been many excellent questions asked, and I do not wish to diminish their importance with a tiresome debate.
Your appeal to your founding fathers is moot, for as you should notice, the USA is a functional democracy with no internal or external threats in a position to upset that democracy.
How is one to know that your militia is not one of “those nut cases”, in as much as you have pointed out your willingness to illegally kill people rather than resort to the courts to decide constitutional questions?
Good question. I have not yet approached the SPPD or UPD. The reason is because I suspect they will want to see some official training or privilege certificates such as CPR training, ham radio licenses, and NRA instructorships. We’re working on these, but (unfortunately) don’t have everyone “onboard” yet.
No. We talked about it, but it just never happened. Perhaps next year!
Another good question. I am not a believer in “active recruitment.” I prefer to do the opposite, i.e. if someone wants to join the unorganized militia, I assume they will make the effort to contact us. So all I need to do is make sure we’re easy to find, which is where the web comes in handy…
I’ll tell ya, St. Paris must have more pizza places per capita than anyplace else in the nation! Personally I like the pizzas from Thackery Market. If you ask for green peppers, they grab a fresh pepper and start cutting. Now that’s fresh!
Do you ever take your under-18 male sons along? Do your fellow militia members agree with this stance of yours and do they bring along their young sons? Here’s why I ask. Comments on that page and several others. “I would never allow my minor son to be alone with a known male homosexual…” and all that. I don’t remember seeing you participating in a thread on atheists and children before, so I can’t ask anything about that other than to comment that what you see someone doing does not necessarily have any bearing on what they are. For example, you could walk around in Southwest Virginia and see me with my fiancee and you might assume from that sight that I’m heterosexual.
I have to admit, I admire most of the principles you stand for. (I don’t hold that Americans are favored by God- more that the rights we enjoy are ours as people (“men” in the constitution) and our country is set up to protect those of us who are a part of it.)
I do have a couple questions. How are militia’s organized. Are there leadership positions? Are they elected? I have a feeling that if the SHTF, it will be in dribbles that slowly build to one large POS. That is, there probably won’t be a time when the government says, “time to neuter everyone and lock them up.” Instead it would be a gradual process, maybe with rights of specific minorities going first (alla Nazi Germany). How will you decide when the threshold is reached and it’s time to act? Do the different militia communicate and coordinate? It seems to me defense against a military like ours (if it was turned against us) would require some serious organization and maybe leadership (like the men you mentioned in a previous post).
The ACLU seems to be a defensive organization also. It takes on cases of people who’s rights have been infringed. They may not defend all the rights you would like them too, but other than not taking all the cases you’d like, how do you feel about them?
In a related vein, are there rights that you hold more important than others to protect? I’m guessing the right to bear arms is pretty high because it’s how you plan to protect the others. Of the others, which ones would your militia fight to protect and which would be subject to more of a cost/benefit analysis. (Like if first generation immigrants were not allowed to own (or limited in owning) guns. Or homosexuals were not allowed to assemble to protest persecution.)
I’m not so sure thats the case. When the only candidates that we have a chance to vote on are the ones that can get the extreme amounts of money it is neccesary to elected, then we only get to vote on are which of the two candidates the large corporations want us to vote on. Our Democracy may be functioning, barely, but it is coughing up blood to say the least. If it gets to the point where all three braches are completely bought and paid for, then that is the kind of situation that our founding fathers would have fought against, with a gun if neccessary. I am not saying that we are there now, but I can see us getting there with out too much trouble.
As far as organization goes, it varies from state to state. Some states have a state-wide “command and control” structure, but Ohio isn’t one of them. Ohio is made up of small, independent units, most of them county-based. Some of these units have a leadership hierarchy, and some even assign “rank” modeled after the military (Colonel, Lieutenant, etc.). The militia I belong to has one “commanding officer,” and that’s it. (I do not think militias should have a rank/hierarchy structure. But that’s just my personal opinion.) There are times when two or more units will host a joint training session, but for the most part training is local.
Communication is primarily done via email and 2-meter ham (144 – 148 MHz).
I’m glad you included the “if” statement, since I doubt such a situation would occur. But if it did (God forbid), it would not necessarily require “serious organization and leadership.” I will not elaborate, since it falls outside the scope of this thread.
I don’t think much of them, but that’s a personal opinion.
The right to bear arms is the most fundamental of all rights, since it protects the others. As far as “prioritizing” goes, I’ve never given it much thought. I’ve always figured that all inalienable rights have pretty much equal status, and we will defend any and all of them.
Consider yourself corrected. Treaties have the force of federal law (if the feds decide to enforce and/or abide by them, of course), but they cannot and do not abrogate the Constitution.
Aha, but we’re not a functional democracy. We’re a Republic. This isn’t a semantical difference, but it’s very fundamental.
If we were indeed a function democracy, defending one’s rights by force would be anti-democratic. If the majority wishes to oppress the minority, that’s perfectly valid in a democracy.
In a Republic, however, the rule of law and protection of fundamental rights are placed above the whim of the majority. The tyranny of the majority cannot oppress the rights of the minority.
**
In a republic, the legislature and judiciary decides matters of law except when such laws would abridge or impose on fundamental rights.
**
Some people believe they can use lethal force in the defense of their fundamental rights from those who would wish to oppress them. I’m one of them.
Godwin aside, is it “validly democratic” if a majority decides to commit genocide against a minority? Does that minority have a legitimate right to use force in it’s own defense? What Crafter_Man seems to be saying is no different - he’s willing to use force in the defense of the fundamental rights of himself and his fellow citizens.
**
Terrorist groups commit violence against populations at large in order to coerce them to political objectives. He’s speaking merely of defending people from oppression. We’re not talking about murdering civilians to achieve a political goal - we’re talking about the use of force in self defense.
Were I trying to start anything there’d be another Pit thread in your honor (the one I referenced wasn’t started in your honor, but you responded substantially more than the other person in question). I’m merely asking for clarification on something, which IIRC is what this thread is for. And of course I had no reason to think your opinion had changed from the material you posted several times in that thread, as your posts have shown here. I’m still interested in seeing it defended, but as none of my school colors is blue I’m not going to hold my breath:)