Vague and nebulous hypothetical threats aside, domestic policy in this country by and large is not determined at gunpoint. Do you think it would be more productive to get involved political groups that lobby legislators and increase public awareness of issues instead of stockpiling rifles and playing army?
I agree. And it’s a good thing, since such only occurs in uncivilized and barbaric societies.
Well first of all we are not “stockpiling rifles and playing army.” Secondly, most of us are involved in conventional political groups and associations. And we vote.
But what will we do if our conventional efforts fail? What if there are attempts to steal our rights anyway? What do we do then?? That’s where the militia comes in. We are the “back up plan.”
Crafter: What’s your opinion on that part of the Constitution that provides for redress of grievances? Or is just killing the poor sod that happens to be enforcing a law you just so happen not to agree with the only option?
I just want to say that Crafter_Man has been responding with admirable equanimity. Some of the debate going on here reminds me of a talk by Peter Duesberg (the guy who says HIV does not cause AIDS) I saw. He responded in a rational tone of voice and answered everyones objectives, but instead of reasonably pointing out the holes in his hypothesis, many of the the main stream scientists were too enraged and just made poorly reasoned objections whose main points seemed to be derogatory comments.
I don’t know if all or most milita’s are the same. They don’t seem to be, but the word does seem to upset many people. Most of what I’m learning from this thread is one sided (well reasoned opinion on one side and emotion on the other) which is (I guess) why it was started. I am curious about other points of view so I hope to hear reasoned defenses of them.
PC
I think that the point he is trying to make is that if the government gets to a level of corruption that it is totally ignoring the constitution, if all else fails.
Thanks bdgr. There’s also another possibility that was brought up by Senorbeef (in his very excellent post above): A situation wherein the majority usurps the rights of a minority. Our republican form of government is supposed to keep this from happening. But what if there’s a breakdown? As mentioned above, that’s where the militia would come in, as a last line-of-defense to safeguard our individual and inalienable liberties.
I have met and communicated with many people involved with the militia. Most share my opinions. But as with any so-called “movement,” you will always have a few nut cases existing outside the 3-sigma area of the bell curve.
What if the Constitution was changed? I mean, in a perfectly legal fashion, ratified and everything? Would you accept it?
You mean the passage of an amendment? I’m certainly not against the amendment process. Perhaps you’re wondering if I would accept an amendment that either a): Disallows the people to practice an inalienable right, or b): Repeals or nullifies one or more Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
No, I would not accept such an amendment.
So you’re not defending the Constitution - after all, one of the basic tenents of the document is its openness to change; that its purpose is to serve and obey the American People and not the other way around. You’re defending your own personal code.
Actually Alessan, the Constitution is not very open to change; the Framers prescribed a very cumbersome and time consuming process for making any modifications to it (and for good reason). I also do not subscribe to the belief that “change” is one of the “basic tenants to the Constitution.” In fact, I think the opposite is true.
Anyway back to your question… we do defend the Constitution, so long as it does not usurp the inalienable rights of its states or citizens. If the Constitution is ever changed in this respect, we will seek to change it back to its original configuration.
With the exception of our Creator, it is our belief that the individual is the supreme being & authority, NOT the Constitution and NOT the government. If either of the latter gets corrupted or abused, it is the right of the people to change them. And with force, if necessary.
Do any of the militia members feel that Americans have an inalienable right to grow any plant they want on their own personal property…or to smoke the leaves of any plant? …And if so, would any of the militia resort to the use of firearms to defend those inalienable rights?
I’m not sure - I have never discussed this issue in depth with other militia members. But I sense that, if a poll were taken, there would be no consensus on this issue. Many are of libertarian persuasion (and thus for the decriminalization of drug use) and many are mainstream conservative (just the opposite). I consider myself a “conservative libertarian,” and thus fall between the two camps.
Crafter_Man, could you elaborate a little more on your field and classroom “training sessions”? What exactly do you study and/or practice?
Crafter Man: How do you recruit, or do you? How does one join your unit? Does your militia have a “screening process” to weed out McVeigh* wannabes and the like? Have you ever rejected anybody for membership or thrown anybody out of the militia and if so, for what reason? (You can be very general if you’d rather not give specifics.) Would you allow, say, an openly white supremacist person to join, provided he did not advocate violence against non-whites, gays, Jews, Muppet Americans, etc., and had no criminal record?
Out of curiosity (if not out of left field), are many members of your group into Civil War re-enactment? A friend who is a member of a local Confederate regiment told me of the huge overlap between re-enactors and militia members.
If there were a “bible” of the militia movement, what would it be? (I’m not talking religious implications, but in the “FEMININE MYSTIQUE is the bible of feminists” sense.)
Is there any way that the cast of the Anna Nicole Show could be declared a national threat by your standards and selected for a show of force? I’d buy the first 300 rounds of ammo. (Give the kid a chance to be taken to safety, then shoot anything that moves- no court on Earth will convict you.)
*Has anybody read the article THE MEANING OF TIMOTHY MCVEIGH http://ads.yourfreedvds.com/creatives/popunders/monsterspu_3_176.html by Gore Vidal, incidentally? Vidal can be called with great justification a pompous provocateur and media whore, but it’s one of his better pieces.
DOH!:smack: Please forgive me, I’m a little bit stupid on my Daddy’s side and I accidentally posted the damned pop-up ad’s URL above. This is the correct link for the Vidal article.
Examples include shooting skills (rifle handling, positions, shot placement, safety, etc.), communication, tactical movement, field medicine, cover and concealment, sanitation, patrolling, land navigation, equipment review, survival training, and other forms of field art.
Good questions.
Yes, there is a sort of “informal screening process.” This is the way it usually works:
Someone interested in joining the militia will contact me via email or snail mail. It is at this stage I attempt to get a feel for the type of person they are. Do they want to join for the right reasons? Do they appear to be of stable mind? Are they serious? If they “pass” this initial stage I will set up a face-to-face meeting. This can be at their home, our home, or a public establishment (coffee house, etc.). It is then that I seek answers to the following:
Are they racist? Do they have white supremacist views?
Do they appear to be angry or violence-prone?
Are they into unlawful activities?
Are they psychologically stable? (This is impossible to gage without a medical test. I just have to rely on my gut instincts.)
Do they want to join for the right reasons?
Are they anti-government?
Do they hold radical political views?
Are they trustworthy? (This is another one that simply requires judgment on my part.)
If I’m satisfied with what I’m hearing, and if I feel they are genuinely serious and inquiring for the right reasons, I will ask them to join us.
Yes, one of them is heavily into re-enactments.
Non-religious? Hmmm. Not really. A couple that might be considered “bibles” would be Unintended Consequences by John Ross and Boston’s Gun Bible by Boston T. Party.
Indeed, the Anna Nicole Show does represent a threat to our national sanity. Militia units across the country are coordinating a massive effort to address this embarrassment to our once-revered republic.
hmm, yes but it is exactly the reason we would like to hear.
Where and when did god manifest that he sheds his light on thee.
Didn’t he already pick Israel for that?
And what does that actually mean? What does shedding his light entail?
According to a recent article in Scientific American, physicists from Virginia Tech, in collaboration with the MIT School of Engineering, concluded God Shed His Grace on Thee on the morning of April 19[sup]th[/sup], 1775.