Militia Members Arrested in Southern Michigan

[Rich Parsons]

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.

Do you mean like the response that came about from 9-11-2001?

I said I did not like what the government was doing then. I was called a traitor and communist and democrat and other terms meant as insults as I did not want to give up my freedoms and rights for perceived safety.

I agree what can we do against the government? I know I can call and complain. I can vote for different people.

But the general population was in knee jerk reaction and they took away rights.

Now, that a different party is in control people are upset with them taking the next step or continuing the implementation of the last party for our safety or just because.

This is not meant as anything personal. Just me commenting and asking questions.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

JKS,

I agree wiser men did decide. But, for us to do it again would be considered treason until you won.

 

[Marginal]

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.

I thought that ignoring gripes and painting groups with a broad brush is the only way to save the country from terrorism.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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.

The EC is not a states rights issue. It is a Federal issue, U.S Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. The only thing that the states have control over is whether they are going to apportion all of the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, or apportion them by percentage. Only two states, Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral college votes by percentage.

And, only 24 states have laws against "faithless electors" (those electors who vote for candidate other then to whom they have pleged). Even if they are prosecuted, their vote still stands in all but one state.

Also, there have been three elections where the popular candidate lost the electoral college election, so no, the President is not chosen by majority (of the people) vote.

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.

Not true, if they give the people more freedom then they had before they succeeded.

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.

Although I do think that the rifleman is the backbone of any military, guerilla movement, or revolution, when a tank comes rolling down the street threatening to crush you and your family for rebelling, that sends a powerful message, especially if you have nothing to defend yourself with.

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.

This depends on your definition of support. Many people may agree with the militia, but be afraid to actively support it for fear of reprisal. There were alot of people against Hitler, but because of his disdain for the law of the land (at the time), they did nothing. And look what happened.

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.

You are. But then you have the national media saying that the Tea Party members are racist, anti-semitic nutjobs, thereby attempting to negate any power that they may accrue. How does one fight that?

Now understand, all else being equal, I think that they may have a fighting chance. But that's the whole point, isn't it. Not all things are equal. And that is what some of these groups are "revolting" against.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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.

Really? So, some of the groups that supported the Founding Fathers weren't racist or anti-semitic? They owned slaves, for goodness sake, and feared what would happen if the Africans were set free upon America. Not to mention what they thought of, and did to, the indigenous population of America.

Sorry, but this does not help your case.

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.

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.

Ok, so when Black Americans fought for equal civil rights in the '50s and 60's they should have kept their mouths shut. After all, they weren't slaves anymore, how bad could it be? So they couldn't vote in the South without fear of beatings and death, at least they weren't forced to work the fields with no wages and barely sustainable nutrition.

Either way, it does not mean that we are not "backsliding" into something of what we had before. The only difference is that now it is "for our own good".

Again, IMO, this does nothing to help your case.

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.

I really wonder how you can say this considering that you have also said:

It all depends on how you make your definitions [regarding a police state]. The US has more of its people in prison than any other country on the planet. Your property can be confiscated without going before a judge, and without a trial. You can be detained and searched for making jokes or saying certain words. Paramilitary style police raids are being used more and more often to serve simple warrants. There is extensive surveillance and monitoring of our communications, without judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that you can be detained for refusing to show identification to the police, even if you are not in a vehicle. And so forth.

I agree that we are a long way from the classic police state - we tend to be more subtle if nothing else. There are many troubling trends in place though.

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.

Gotcha.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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.

It may be that we can vote a candidate out, but we have absolutely no say in what candidates are presented before us for election. That is handled by the National Party Campains. Unless someone is a multi-millionaire, a la Ross Perot, we must suffer who the parties tells us to suffer.

And how can a third party amass such power and prosperity to rival the Democrats or Republicans. The entire system is designed to prevent it. After all, the Democrats and Republicans, who set up the rules of the system, are all of a sudden going to allow another party to rival them.

Seriously... Do we really have a say in what occurs?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It may be that we can vote a candidate out, but we have absolutely no say in what candidates are presented before us for election. That is handled by the National Party Campains. Unless someone is a multi-millionaire, a la Ross Perot, we must suffer who the parties tells us to suffer.

And how can a third party amass such power and prosperity to rival the Democrats or Republicans. The entire system is designed to prevent it. After all, the Democrats and Republicans, who set up the rules of the system, are all of a sudden going to allow another party to rival them.

Seriously... Do we really have a say in what occurs?

Yes, we seriously do. We have had different political parties as majorities before, and it still happens that the influence of various parties ebbs. The pace is slower than most of us notice, like a glacier's movement, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.

 

[Empty Hands]

Really? So, some of the groups that supported the Founding Fathers weren't racist or anti-semitic?

Of course they were. However, they did not found their rebellion from England on racism and antisemitism. They didn't claim they needed to rebel because George III was going to start a race war or because Jews had taken over the monarchy.

Ok, so when Black Americans fought for equal civil rights in the '50s and 60's they should have kept their mouths shut. After all, they weren't slaves anymore, how bad could it be? So they couldn't vote in the South without fear of beatings and death, at least they weren't forced to work the fields with no wages and barely sustainable nutrition.

I don't even know what you are getting at here. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't make things perfect now, or even not bad now. It also doesn't mean things don't need to change now. But if as a militia member you are going to point to the past as a model for how much better things were and how revolution is needed now, then things had actually better be worse back then.

I really wonder how you can say this considering that you have also said:

Both things are true.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes, we seriously do. We have had different political parties as majorities before, and it still happens that the influence of various parties ebbs. The pace is slower than most of us notice, like a glacier's movement, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.

That would be to assume that their is a major difference between the two parties. We still have no say as to who our candidates are. I don't like the choice of having to choose least worst instead of best.

Either way, this is not about our perspective, but theirs. Can you at least begin to understand where they might be coming from, even if you don't agree?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That would be to assume that their is a major difference between the two parties. We still have no say as to who our candidates are. I don't like the choice of having to choose least worst instead of best.

No one is forced to vote for candidates put up by their respective parties.

Either way, this is not about our perspective, but theirs. Can you at least begin to understand where they might be coming from, even if you don't agree?

No, I don't see where they are coming from at all, not even slightly. Under our current system, there will always be the disenfranchised, those whose views are in the minority. They will always feel neglected, downtrodden, even abused. No matter who 'they' are.

Since there will always those who feel they live under a repressive regime, to give any one group the 'moral right' to act in revolution is to say that they're all OK if they do that. Even if I'm one of those who feels his views are neglected, that the country is not moving in the right direction, that I no longer have a voice. Making it OK for me makes it OK for everyone with a grudge. No way, brother.

As long as change is possible, even if not probable; as long as the bums can be voted out and will go if that happens; then there is no legal, no moral, no ethical, and certainly no constitutional basis for revolution.

Put these guys on trial. If they fomented seditious acts against the United States and they are found guilty, execute them. Period. Rebellions should be put down, hard.

If the day should ever come when we vote an incumbent out of office and he or she refuses to go, if one branch of government ever dismantles or shuts down the others, if anyone seizes power by might rather than by vote, then I will do what needs to be done. Nothing short of that; and I mean nothing, would ever convince me that those who foment domestic revolution are anything other than terrorists to be put down like mad dogs.

And just look at them. What were the alleged plans? Kill a police officer and then detonate a bomb at his funeral to kill many other police officers (and presumably any other innocent people gathered to mourn a hero who went down in the line of duty). This was supposed to incite further acts of rebellion. What courage. What honor. What cowards.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Of course they were. However, they did not found their rebellion from England on racism and antisemitism. They didn't claim they needed to rebel because George III was going to start a race war or because Jews had taken over the monarchy.

And not all "militia" groups are either. Have a look at the Free State Movement, especially the Free State Wyoming project. Although they would not necessarily be considered a militia per Federal definition, they don't have a racist basis. Also, there are alot of survivalists who feel the same and conduct "paramilitary" training and could be considered militias.

I don't even know what you are getting at here. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't make things perfect now, or even not bad now. It also doesn't mean things don't need to change now. But if as a militia member you are going to point to the past as a model for how much better things were and how revolution is needed now, then things had actually better be worse back then.

Your stated that they apparently should have no complaints if they had a better historical perspective and they would then know just how much better they actually had it. Same thing with Black Americans. How can they complain when they had it better then they did before? How could they start armed organizations to prevent what they felt were abuses of their rights, as Black Americans did.

Militias are doing the same thing. There were people who didn't think that Black Americans had the rights to do what they did to "protect" themselves, and it is the same with these militias.

And I don't know as they are looking to the past for such things. I do know, from some of the things that I have looked into, that things aren't good enough now, and that continual government interference is unacceptable to them. Besides, it also depends on just how far back you are going. If you go back to the early 20th Century, then sure, your perspective may be correct. But if you go back even further, then things might be a bit different.

Both things are true.

So is there some threshold in which people can then take up arms to combat the abuses by government? Or should we just acquiese until the point where citizens have had all of their rights taken away, including the ability to arm and organize oursleves, and therefore have no real fighting chance anyway?