Militia Members Arrested in Southern Michigan

[5-0 Kenpo]

Are you ****ing kidding me? They planned on killing a policeman, and then ambushing the funeral procession. Which, presumably, would include any recently widowed spouses and parentless children. You're goddamned right I'll be quick to judge that little plan.

You want to run around the woods, hate Democrats, and talk about freedom? Knock yourself out. But don't pretend that makes you the defender of freedom when it comes time to attack a funeral procession, you cowardly ****s.

What I'm referring to is the overall theme that these discussions are taking, not this particular group. In this and the thread "Government to Silence, Tax, and and Infiltrate all Dissident Groups", we see the continued and derogatory malignment of "militia groups". Understand, some of those people come from the same line of thinking of some of the Founders, whether you choose to believe it or not. And the fact that during the Revolutionary War, similar acts as were planned here actually occurred.

You talk about "understanding" the motivation of Islamic terrorists, but you won't give the same courtesy to people in this country who are affected by the similar issues.

Question: At what point are you going to actually stand up to the government that continues to ignore your wishes, take your rights away, and taxes you without representation (sound familiar)? The question is rhetorical, as it is up to you to judge your own limitations. Though I may not condone their actions, I certainly do understand their sentiment. Politcally, not religiously.

BTW, I am sure that "militia" groups hate the steady encroachment of the Republican on their rights, just as much as they hate the Democrats. Some of these groups may be right wing politically, but its not like the Republican party of today is "right-wing" either.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Personally, 5-0, I think if you're going to speak in generalities, you might want to use less inflammatory phrases than "How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....". Particularly in thread speaking specifically of people planning rather dastardly actions.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Personally, 5-0, I think if you're going to speak in generalities, you might want to use less inflammatory phrases than "How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....". Particularly in thread speaking specifically of people planning rather dastardly actions.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just getting tired of people accusing all classially liberal groups who have guns as being militia groups full of racist, sexist, seccesionist, "neo-Confederate", etc, just because they have the gall to physically challenge the government for violating what they see as their very clear rights. After all, it was within the rights of the King of England to do what he did to the colonies, but we rebelled against that. The question is why aren't we castigating the Founders like we are doing the militias for doing the exact same thing.


Hence the "how quick to judge" comment, which, admittedly, could have been stated a better way.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Perhaps building a thread to address that perception might be in order.

Again, your wording here is highly confrontational and could lead to some very harsh comments.

Personally, I agree that we should not let the government have as much power as they do and it should be confronted; however, I do not, IN ANY WAY condone the actions or plans of the group being discussed in this thread.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Perhaps building a thread to address that perception might be in order.

Again, your wording here is highly confrontational and could lead to some very harsh comments.

Personally, I agree that we should not let the government have as much power as they do and it should be confronted; however, I do not, IN ANY WAY condone the actions or plans of the group being discussed in this thread.

As I said, I do not condone the tactics utilized by this group. But this thread begs the question as to what to do when the government oversteps its bounds and tramples upon people's rights. Even to the point where our so-called elected senators / representatives / President have said that they don't have to listen, and consequently don't. And now they hold us, and by every state and local government, hostage financially and physically. There is no point in voting with the feet, because this is happening in every state.

Sure my comments are confrontational. But only in the realms of ideas, not personal conflict.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I'm just trying to keep it civil. I'd hate to see a flame war erupt.

This is obviously a very serious and sensitive topic. Perhaps 'The Great Debate' might be a particularly good spot to discuss it?

 

[jks9199]

Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen". They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government. Some were even considered terrorists.

How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....

There is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary or patriot or fifth-columnist, whatever you wish to call them.

The terrorist targets innocent victims, primarily selecting their targets for the terror that their actions will inflict. The patriot/revolutionary selects targets of military value... and avoids targeting innocents.

 

[jks9199]

As I said, I do not condone the tactics utilized by this group. But this thread begs the question as to what to do when the government oversteps its bounds and tramples upon people's rights. Even to the point where our so-called elected senators / representatives / President have said that they don't have to listen, and consequently don't. And now they hold us, and by every state and local government, hostage financially and physically. There is no point in voting with the feet, because this is happening in every state.

Sure my comments are confrontational. But only in the realms of ideas, not personal conflict.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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 to 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 shown 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. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. (emphasis mine)
​

The question has been answered by men who have been proven to be wiser than me. However, it is very much worth paying attention to the bolded phrase, and noting that it precedes the underlined phrase. Throwing of the government of England was not something the Founding Fathers did lightly, or without making many attempts to obtain redress through the normal channels before they revolted.

 

[Marginal]

Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen". They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government. Some were even considered terrorists.

How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....

I think most are judging the barking nutters out there like McVeigh and the loons they just arrested. You don't really come across as patriotic or a freedom fighter when your plan is to just randomly attack policemen or an office building.

The term you tend to draw then is "terrorist". They're only revolutionaries when they win.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

There is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary or patriot or fifth-columnist, whatever you wish to call them.

The terrorist targets innocent victims, primarily selecting their targets for the terror that their actions will inflict. The patriot/revolutionary selects targets of military value... and avoids targeting innocents.

Do you really believe that. Was Mao a patriot when he destroyed villages in China? What about the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution. Or the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Patriots all, at least in their minds.

That's easy to say when you're the winner writing the history.

As far as the U.S. Revolutionary War:

Look up the Schenectady massacre.

Look up Charles Lynch (for whom lyncing is allegedly named) for his "extra judicial" actions during the Civil War.

Let's not begin to discuss the U.S. Civil War, during which "patriots" of both sides committed atrocities.

Besides which, what are the police but the "combat arms" section of the executive branches of state governments. They are the proverbial "security forces" of the United States government. They are, despite what many may think, a legitimate "military" target.

The question has been answered by men who have been proven to be wiser than me. However, it is very much worth paying attention to the bolded phrase, and noting that it precedes the underlined phrase. Throwing of the government of England was not something the Founding Fathers did lightly, or without making many attempts to obtain redress through the normal channels before they revolted.

Do you think that others did take their revolutions lightly?

What makes you think that the American "militias" are taking their revolution lightly?

I would add more, but I have to get to work. Just some stuff to think about.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just getting tired of people accusing all classially liberal groups who have guns as being militia groups full of racist, sexist, seccesionist, "neo-Confederate", etc, just because they have the gall to physically challenge the government for violating what they see as their very clear rights. After all, it was within the rights of the King of England to do what he did to the colonies, but we rebelled against that. The question is why aren't we castigating the Founders like we are doing the militias for doing the exact same thing.

Because they won.

Had they not won, then everybody would know that a handful of traitors had tried to overthrow her Majesties government in the North American colonies, and were rightly hung, drawn and quartered for high treason, just like Guy Fawkes.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Besides which, what are the police but the "combat arms" section of the executive branches of state governments. They are the proverbial "security forces" of the United States government. They are, despite what many may think, a legitimate "military" target.

The police are keepers of the peace, who signed up to try and make the world a slightly better place to live in. Not all of them probably, but enough of them.

What makes you think that the American "militias" are taking their revolution lightly?

As long as you can vote and determine the outcome, there is little need to revolution, because without a majority of support for a revolution, all you are doing is shooting the country to bits and destroying an entire economy without having anything to replace it with.

Without a majority support, the American founders would have failed as well. But they had a legitimate grudge against their government, they had no non-violent options to affect change, and they had the support of the population. These militias having nothing like that except a grudge which may or may not be valid.

If an American militia is really aiming for revolution in the current US context (where votes still determine the government) then they are 3 tomatoes short of a salad.

 

[Carol]

Is this really about revolution? Or is this more about power and attention?

Do these nutjobs have more in common with the Lackawanna 6? Or the KKK?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The police are keepers of the peace, who signed up to try and make the world a slightly better place to live in. Not all of them probably, but enough of them.
[/quote}

I understand what the police are. I am one, after all.

However, they are the armed representatives of the state government. They have power to prevent, by force of arms, an insurrection. That makes us, yes, that includes me, a legitimate target for attack.

As long as you can vote and determine the outcome, there is little need to revolution, because without a majority of support for a revolution, all you are doing is shooting the country to bits and destroying an entire economy without having anything to replace it with.

First, your premise is dependent upon the fact that a person's vote can determine the outcome. I will tell you that in California, my vote in the past couple of elections for President would not have determined anything (thank you electoral college). Even still, as I stated before, those who are supposed to represent us have literally told us that they will do what they want, despite the will of the people.

And you do not need majority support to begin a revolution. All that you have to do is drum up support during your revolution. If you study the history of Cuba, you will see this very thing. But, regardless, it usually all starts out by showing the illegitimacy of the current regime.

Without a majority support, the American founders would have failed as well. But they had a legitimate grudge against their government, they had no non-violent options to affect change, and they had the support of the population. These militias having nothing like that except a grudge which may or may not be valid.

This is just not true. You don't need majority support. You need enough support. This does not mean that you have to have at least 51% of the population supporting you, at least in the initial stages of the revolution.

Remember, also, there were great debates and disagreements amongst the states as to whether to rebel or not. According to historians, only about 40% of the colonists initially supported revolution against the King of England. About 20% were Loyalists, and about 35% were completely neutral on the matter. But the fact of the matter is that they had enough people, and more importantly, enough of the right people, supporting revolution.

If an American militia is really aiming for revolution in the current US context (where votes still determine the government) then they are 3 tomatoes short of a salad.

I never said they were inherently intelligent. Nor did I say that they would be successful. My only point was that they have a gripe, whether you and I consider it legitimate or not is somewhat irrelevant. The King of England thought that the colonies gripes were illegitimate as well.

The only thing that I am really trying to put forth is that alot of people look at this group as nothing but nutjobs. And in this case, it sounds like I would agree with them (not having all of the facts, after all).

But, to lump in all "militia" groups into similar categories is disingenuous. To shuffle them off as mere crazies is to ignore their possible legitimate gripes, and their willingness to do something about it.

England did the same thing. Do we want to follow down that path?

 

[Bruno@MT]

First, your premise is dependent upon the fact that a person's vote can determine the outcome. I will tell you that in California, my vote in the past couple of elections for President would not have determined anything (thank you electoral college). Even still, as I stated before, those who are supposed to represent us have literally told us that they will do what they want, despite the will of the people.

The EC was invented by the founders. It is a states right issue.
Texas does the same. I think the EC should at least be split according to the voting percentages, but Texas and California would have to do it at the same time or either the dems or the reps will get a huge advantage.
Regardless of that, federally speaking the president is still chosen by majority vote.

This is just not true. You don't need majority support. You need enough support. This does not mean that you have to have at least 51% of the population supporting you, at least in the initial stages of the revolution.

Well, but suppose one of these militias has oodles of firepower and manages to disrupt the government. They are a tiny minority. Hence even if they would succeed, the result would be even worse tyranny.

This is why I think it is a good idea that the 2nd amendment is not presently covering tanks, missiles, WMD and other things. If there is a legitimate need to overthrow the government, there will be enough grassroots support that you can win by numbers and by taking control of infrastructure.

If a militia doesn't have support and they are a tiny fringe group, then they'd need uber firepower. But in that case, they are just terrorists because the majority of the governed are ok with the current situation.

You are still allowed to create your own political party, right? So you can start taking control at local level, and work your way up to national level. The election process is still adhered to. Sure, it is a lot of work, but as long as you are not able to drum up support for your cause, any alternative approach like a violent revolution is destined towards failure as well.

 

[punisher73]

Group lunacy, no. That goes hand-in-hand with the human condition. But I thought we were perhaps past these domestic terrorists. After OKC and then 9/11, the crazies went pretty much underground or otherwise got on with their lives. What now? Are we in for another spate of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Justice Township and whatever else the loonies can come up with and the federal government can ham-handedly make martyrs of?

We deal alot with Michigan Militia in our county. They did use to be alot more noticeable in the past. Now if you go to their website, they promote themselves as kind of a community action group. If you didn't know what they stood for and what they do, looking at their website it would seem they are a good group of people to hang out with.

Any group is always going to have the fringe members that take everything to an extreme. Luckily, in this case they were caught before they could carry out their plans.

 

[Empty Hands]

What I'm referring to is the overall theme that these discussions are taking, not this particular group.

I see, thank you for clarifying.

Understand, some of those people come from the same line of thinking of some of the Founders, whether you choose to believe it or not. And the fact that during the Revolutionary War, similar acts as were planned here actually occurred.

I know they see themselves that way, but such a belief is delusional. There is no comparison. First, the militia movement as a whole is rife with antisemitism and racism. Common tropes include the coming race wars, and the Turner Diaries as literature. The movement as a whole is infested with the belief of the Zionist Occupied Government. Many are also obsessed with white racial purity and similar racist concerns.

As for their "arguments", if they knew even a little history, there is also no comparison. They think they are unrepresented? Only propertied white males could vote when the US was established. Senators were not elected by the people until the 20th century. It was up to the states to decide if the people elected the President as well. The US used to be ruled by elite money far more than it is today, and it is ruled by elite money today as well.

They think they are taxed? Taxes are lower now than at any time since the early 20th century. The top rate was above 90% during the Eisenhower administration.

They think their rights are curtailed? John Adams, you know one of those Sainted founders, put newspaper editors in jail when they criticized him. Jackson ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus as a wartime exigency. Roosevelt put all the Japanese Americans in detention camps during WWII. If the militia had any sense, they would know they are in a record time of prosperity, respect for rights, lack of corruption (yes, it's true), representation and even fairly low taxes.

But none of this knowledge fits their preconceived fantasies and flatters their egos, so it is ignored. So I don't spend a lot of time taking their self-flattery that they are just like the founders seriously.

You talk about "understanding" the motivation of Islamic terrorists, but you won't give the same courtesy to people in this country who are affected by the similar issues.

I speak of understanding Islamic terrorists because it is smart military strategy. Know what your opponent will do, know why, know what you can do to undermine him and his support. Know what you can do to remove the grievance so no one else feels compelled to die. I would understand the militias for the same reason, as indeed I do. I've read a lot on the movement, from former members, interested outsiders, infiltrators and the like.

BTW, I am sure that "militia" groups hate the steady encroachment of the Republican on their rights, just as much as they hate the Democrats. Some of these groups may be right wing politically, but its not like the Republican party of today is "right-wing" either.

They know who their allies are in the mainstream, where the sympathies lie. They are not stupid. They excoriate the Republicans for not going far enough. Before the Southern Strategy, those with similar political beliefs knew where their sympathies lay with the Democratic Party.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In my opinion, anyone who bases a justification for armed insurrection or revolution in the USA on the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers needs to ask themselves one critical question.

Are we still capable as citizens of changing our circumstances?

That is, can we still vote the bums out? Do elected representatives refuse to leave office if they are not re-elected?

If the answer is yes, that we still possess the power of the ballot box, then there is no justifiable excuse for insurrection or revolution. Our system cannot be called oppressive or despotic or a cruel regime while we still possess the power to change things completely.

The fact that many of us are not happy with our elected representatives or the direction our nation is headed is simply not the same as saying that we as citizens have lost control of our nation. It's saying that we don't like what's happening, but we can't seem to muster majority support to change things. That's just too frickin' bad. And I say that as one who does think we're going the wrong direction, one who is not happy with our elected representatives.

We get the government we vote for. If they displease us and we still keep re-electing them, then shame on us. If some minority (like me) thinks things are horrible, then our job is convince our fellow citizens to vote the bums out. If we can't manage to do that, then too bad, so sad, move on.

Revolution is for when the government no longer responds to the people. What we're seeing now is a government that makes a lot of people angry, but which still rules by law and can be voted out at the end of their respective terms. Vote or shut up. Picking up a weapon and declaring war on our government while we still possess the power of the ballot box makes a person a traitor, IMHO.

 

[crushing]

This is so not good. I thought we were done with these militia groups.

They have been around the whole time, what has changed is the leadership of the executive branch.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Will we see calls for the eight detained alleged terrorists to be tortured so that we can catch the ninth on the run? Or just to show them that we mean business?

Somehow I don't think so.

Would it be cruel and unusual punishment or torture to make them watch Congress in session over and over on a repeat loop?