ATF targets three percenters

[Gordon]

regarding the scum bag cop killer crazos:
Las Vegas Cop Killers were LV Metro Police Informants
by Prepper
June 17, 2014

The husband and wife pair of Las Vegas, Nevada cop killers were kicked out of the Bundy Ranch because the husband 31 year old Jerad Miller had failed a cursory background check conducted by militia at the Bundy Ranch. Now two new pieces of information have come to light. One is that Miller was killed by police bullets not by his wife shooting him in a murder-suicide as had previously been published. The other piece of information is that Jerad Miller had been a police informant to the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. Las Vegas Metro detectives apparently knew Jerad Miller well which begs the question, was Miller informing to the Las Vegas Police about goings on at the Bundy Ranch before Miller was discovered and kicked out? What else could Miller be informing the LV Police about?

From Reuters:


According to police, the Millers had cooperated with Nevada law enforcement twice this year to provide witness testimony, but detectives did not receive any indication that the couple had anti-police sentiments.

Information about the suspects gleaned from police and social media painted a picture of a pair with increasingly extremist views on law enforcement, culminating in a Facebook post a day before the shooting warning of the “dawn of a new day.”
Investigators have not yet found any links between the couple and extremist groups, and McMahill said police believe the pair, married in Indiana in 2012, worked alone.
Police said the Millers had expressed support in social media for renegade Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose property was the scene of a high-profile April standoff between federal agents and Bundy supporters over a forced round-up of his cattle from public land.
The Bundy family said on Tuesday the Millers were at the protest site for a few days but were asked to leave after other demonstrators expressed concern about Jerad’s “aggressive nature and volatility.”

 

[orionengnr]

They can't even quote the Pledge of Allegiance correctly. There is no comma between "one nation" and "under God."

There was when I learned it, a bit over fifty years ago...

In today's climate: Militia = Right wing fringe extremist hate terrorist cell.

It is our media and our education systems that have been infiltrated, and the result is what you see before you.

 

[Ryanxia]

Wally nailed it! I have renounced any ties to 3%ers . I don't want to painted with the dirty slurs and lies that the opponents of the "debate" (haha) will surely use to justify gestapo actions. I am too old to be much use in the field anyway, the younguns will have to get er done or enjoy the gulag with it's boot heels that draws ever closer IMHO .

Don't be intimidated, keep calm and carry on.
The last part I agree you are spot on.

 

[ntrantham]

There was when I learned it, a bit over fifty years ago...


Actually, it was never there... In school I was never given the Pledge in writing, except maybe in our history books, but when reciting it verbally, most of the teachers, etc. paused between the two statements. This leads many to believe there is a comma there. However, in 1954 when "under God" was added, there was no comma. Take a look here at the actual bill President Eisenhower signed:
http://research.archives.gov/description/5730382

 

[Tirod]

Seems to fit with the current campaign trail rhetoric:

We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.

We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before.

Which implies that this small minority needs to be disarmed to prevent their terrorism. While it would be easy to say it applies to anyone who is RKBA, what I draw from it is exactly what is said in the context of the situation - campaign rhetoric ladled out to a specific audience. Telling them something they want to hear.

The difficulty is actually doing it. What the planners need to avoid in any way possible is to choose targets that could be seen as sympathetic to the population, or more specifically, to us. If we agree they are whackos, we stand idly by, and the public safety is preserved.

The reaction to a forced resolution at the Bundy Ranch was very likely considered to be a very real negative. There are those delegated to consider it in the less politicized halls of enforcement, where some reason and little political agenda is exercised. You don't blunder stupidly into an action that would result in making the opposing point of view's job easier to sell. We have a large number of experienced people that have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan that worked diligently for years to make relations improve while still getting gains for our point of view.

Same people are now in positions that would be assigned to oversee activities with our own radicals. It's not like we are immune - the backlash for Waco was OKC. That is becoming another textbook study in how to do it wrong.

In the theory of acting against terrorists, there is the concept of not only having "just causes" for armed action, but also "just methods." Both sides are subject to those - like it or not. There very well may have been only 3% of the people who took up arms against the king, as noted, but it was effective because the king blundered. If America is anything, it's the classic study of insurrection and how it can be managed badly.

So, those guys who were patiently studying history at the desk next to you in class, and who exercised the methods overseas, are now trying to address those who do take up arms against US in malls and businesses. It's OUR police trying to keep us from being unfair to each other, right? Frankly, if you have a good balance of ethics and applying them in your life, cops aren't your focus anyway.

If they are, it's evidence of mismanaged priorities. And acting out to destroy them - when they are just getting paid to do what we want them to do - is really off base. They are our employees, not our oppressors.

If they are oppressors to you, then you have a problem with authority in your life. There will always be authority, and attempting to destroy it is usually usurped by others to impose THEIRS.

To those who would like to see the nation run their way, it's pretty easy to go ahead and justify allowing the police to investigate extremist movements. It works to their favor in the long run - as a pretty free society, the natural reaction to the excesses is to restrict it. As long as the extremists keep pushing, then the "defenseless" cry out for something to be done, and those in authority have every justification to clamp down even more.

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?

Keep posting up talk about enforcement being the problem - because it just stirs up those inclined to be extremist, they act out, and we lose more freedom. Cause and effect, bottom line, our over the top conversation and hysteria just contributes to the problem.

So, they have a team to look at it? It wouldn't be a problem if there weren't people out shooting cops in the first place. If we quit spreading the virus that cops are the problem, maybe others wouldn't get the idea of doing something to "cure" it. WE need to deescalate our rants in order to defuse THEIR ability to twist it against us.

That is the big picture of what's going on. If you have ears to hear, listen.

 

[heycods]

There was when I learned it, a bit over fifty years ago...


It is our media and our education systems that have been infiltrated, and the result is what you see before you.

Me too, somewhere back in late 50s or early 60s

 

[ATLDave]

Once again, does anyone have the original source ATF document or remarks?

 

[MErl]

Link in OP has a link to TV station report:
http://wgntv.com/2014/06/05/a-look-inside-chicagos-gun-intelligence-center/#

 

[bhesler]

It sounds like they are labeling Chicago's shooters as "three percenters"

I am sure this is a different demographic than the group deriving their name from the revolutionary war participation rate, but I am not sure that the Crime Gun Intelligence Center arrived at this name accidentally. It could possibly refer to the percentage of Chicago residents that are actively shooting up the city.

 

[Outlaw Man]

There are the self-proclaimed III%ers who are the "nutjob" militias that actually probably amount to 0.003% or less.

Then there are the actual three percent in the 1776 meaning who will never make themselves known until the time comes, if it does. Many may only suspect that they fall in that group and many who think they are in that group won't be when the rubber meets the road. I suspect they may actually number in the 1-3% range, but who knows?

Then there are the rest of gun owners who just want to be left alone and not labeled.

I suspect the upper-most echelons of the ATF want to disarm all three of those groups. Their bosses (Obama, Holder, etc.) have certainly made those intentions clear.

 

[Bobson]

If you don't want to run afoul of the ATF, stay far away from radical "militia" groups. Anyway, such groups are thoroughly infiltrated by law enforcement, so you'd be a fool to join them in the first place.

What is it that makes a militia group "radical?"

 

[ATLDave]

MERl, thanks, but I'm looking for the broader context of the remark. I don't get any sense that the official was talking about the movement being discussed in this thread. I could be wrong, which is why I'd like to see the full context.

FWIW, it seems far more plausible that he's talking about 3% of the population in Chicago being responsible for 90% of the violent crime, or something. This just doesn't have any apparent connection to militia-type movements.

 

[Sol]

What is it that makes a militia group "radical?"

....being in a militia for starters.

I'll link this article again.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-nn-holder-terrorism-task-force-20140601-story.html

"Though*the original task force, which was little known,*focused mainly on right-wing zealots, Holder’s version is aimed at U.S. citizens or visitors radicalized via the Internet. Holder said the government will continue to fight terrorists abroad."

I guess we need more left wing militias...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I guess we need more left wing militias...

We have plenty of them -- they work for the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, etc.

 

[Bobson]

What is it that makes a militia group "radical?"

....being in a militia for starters.

Being a part of a group of people who vow, literally or otherwise, to uphold the US Constitution (without necessarily being paid to do so) makes a person a radical. Now I understand. Thank you for your candor and clarity.

 

[JustinJ]

So, apparently nobody cares that the term 3% has nothing to do with politics or militias. Is it really that appealing to pretend one is being targeted?

 

[Bobson]

What does it have to do with, Justin? If you addressed it earlier, I missed it.

 

[ATLDave]

JustinJ is expressing doubts (which I share) that this has anything to do with a movement/militia/group calling itself "three percenters" or whatever. This seems to be about run of the mill gang-bangers in Chicago, nothing to do with political factions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Bobson wrote:

Being a part of a group of people who vow, literally or otherwise, to uphold the US Constitution (without necessarily being paid to do so) makes a person a radical. Now I understand.

These "militia" groups are pretending to be loyal to the Constitution, but it's the mythical Constitution that exists only in their own minds, and not the institutional Constitution that's the product of 200+ years of history and judicial precedent. Actually, what motivates them is opposition to, and suspicion of, all existing institutions -- their Constitutional claptrap is just window dressing to cover up a deeply antinomian mindset. These people are losers, they never made anything of themselves in the existing system, and they're hoping for a "reset" so that they can be somebodies in the new system that will arise after the coming chaos.

Again, stay far away from any group calling itself a "militia," unless it is state-sanctioned.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I guess we need more left wing militias...

"Militia" is a right-wing term. On the left they prefer to call themselves urban guerillas, direct action groups, etc. I think they're perceived differently because the media tends to be sympathetic -- i.e. Earth First and similar groups -- and in recent years have been more into property damage.

 

[wally]

These "militia" groups are pretending to be loyal to the Constitution, but it's the mythical Constitution that exists only in their own minds, and not the institutional Constitution that's the product of 200+ years of history and judicial precedent.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is confusing you?

Its the recent Administrations and their appointees that are ignoring history and judicial precedent.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Being a part of a group of people who vow, literally or otherwise, to uphold the US Constitution (without necessarily being paid to do so) makes a person a radical. Now I understand. Thank you for your candor and clarity.

As opposed to being a part of a group of people who vow to uphold the US Constitution and ARE paid to do so, but don't.

 

[AlexanderA]

wally wrote:

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is confusing you?

The "militia movement" is about a lot more than the 2nd Amendment. If that's all there was to it, I would say that their hearts were in the right place, although their methods were deeply flawed.

No, the "militia" types are all about a constellation of right-wing causes, including racism, birtherism, and a host of conspiracy theories. In short, they're the closest thing we have to an American fascism. They're also all-around losers.

No thank you. I like my guns, but not these guys. Anyway, in any given "militia" group, the majority of the members are probably either federal or local agents, or informers.

 

[mac66]

I think the issue here is allowing the gov't to define the issue anyway they want. Truly elements of "truth speak" from the novel 1984. The Govt have been able to change the definitions of things over the years "sporting purposes" "assault rifles" etc, etc. to fit their agenda. They have know redefined "three percenters" as illegal gun traffickers. The anti-gun agenda never rests.

Fortunately the original 3%ers fought and won a war which created a form of government which we do have control over. All we have to go is get off our fat behinds and participate in it. Instead, most of us would rather howl at the moon than do something constructive to change things.

 

[22-rimfire]

3%'ers.... if they aren't breaking the law, the BATFE has no reason to be even interested. I don't care if they cross the line into tin foil hat land.

Gun trafficing.... I would not be surprised that they consider any private sale "trafficing". We'll see how this plays out, but I suspect I know who is behind this; more executive decisions.