Vern Humphrey
Member
Exactly right -- this goes hand-in-hand with the IRS harassing Tea Party organizations.
Well, the ATFE is the expert on gun trafficking -- they do a lot of it to keep the Mexican drug lords supplied with the latest weapons.
ATF targets three percenters
- Thread starter Ryanxia
- Start date
- Status
Punkinhead
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 36
I'm pretty confident none of the militia members I've met have actually read the Constitution. They take pride in their lack of education because, after all, universities are filled with evil liberals bent on brainwashing our youth. What they know of the Constitution and civics comes from angry a.m. and short wave radio hosts. They're surrounded by conspiracies - international Jewish cabals, the government blew up the twin towers, NATO camps, black helicopters, etc. A bunch of fat, out of shape military wannabes who like to plod around the woods all out of breath in their camo with more tacticool crap hanging off their belts than Batman and claim to be "training". You can't help but feel sorry for them.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I've met a lot of law enforcement people and federal employees who have never read the Constitution either -- should they be harassed?
Punkinhead
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 36
I was only addressing the question of what makes people think militia members are kooky. Nobody should be harassed just for being kooky. Laughed at, yes, but not harassed.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But that is the point of this thread -- people ARE being harassed, investigated and demonized not for what they DO but for what they THINK and say.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Anyone here really think "gun rights" isn't a keyword for myriad extra 'scrutiny' by assorted relevant bureaus? If we've learned anything, it's that we're governed by search terms in databases anymore.
That said...
From what I gather, 3%'ERS advocate breaking of a theoretical gun ban, and declare all current gun laws illegitimate. While neither of those are illegal acts, they suggest a portion of members would disregard existing firearms laws; and for that, the authorities certainly have jurisdiction. As mentioned, these orgs are lousy with informants, so denigrating their supposed 'danger' is mere chest thumping.
TCB
That said...
From what I gather, 3%'ERS advocate breaking of a theoretical gun ban, and declare all current gun laws illegitimate. While neither of those are illegal acts, they suggest a portion of members would disregard existing firearms laws; and for that, the authorities certainly have jurisdiction. As mentioned, these orgs are lousy with informants, so denigrating their supposed 'danger' is mere chest thumping.
TCB
Outlaw Man
Member
Let's be careful badmouthing those in a militia. In a very real and legal sense, all of us who aren't standing military, outside the proscribed age, or conscientious objectors are part of the militia (though some are more "able bodied" than others, and "male" is probably more questionable with the movement of women into combat roles). While Congress has failed in its duty to support the unorganized portion of the militia, and most states pay very little attention to them, we are the last line of defense against invasion or a tyrannical government - kooks in BDUs, notwithstanding.
I believe that title is being earned by our current leadership in Washington.AlexanderA said:
Vern Humphrey
Member
In other words, they haven't actually COMMITTED any crimes, but they are to be harassed anyway.
So much for the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Apparently. And it begs what should be a core question. Is this latest BATF&E mission based entirely on illegal gun issues, or is it that some in Washington are using this agency as a club with which to attack individuals who hold political views those in power object too.
Punkinhead
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 36
Have they actually been harassed or is it just theoretical at this point?
Gordon
Member
"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.
"
Dead wrong liberal brain washing; slandering a huge group of patriots for a few bad apples.
"
Dead wrong liberal brain washing; slandering a huge group of patriots for a few bad apples.
AlexanderA
Member
Outlaw Man wrote:
The current legal definition of the militia is in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 311:
Yes, that's a fairly broad definition (and in the 18th century, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was even broader). But here's the key thing: outside of the National Guard and other state-sanctioned organizations, the broad definition applies to the mass of unorganized people. The minute private individuals attempt to organize groups of self-appointed "militia," without state sanction, these become private, partisan, rogue armies responsible to no one but themselves. The government has a right, indeed an obligation, to crack down on such rogue private armies, or else we'd be in danger of becoming another Iraq or Syria. One definition of a sovereign government is that it exercises a "monopoly of force."
Now, if you want to stage a 1776-style revolution, that's another story. But you better make sure that you win.
Edited to add: The earliest historical precedent of the government cracking down on a rogue private army was when President George Washington put on his general's uniform to lead the expedition against the Whiskey Rebellion. If the Whiskey Rebellion had not been put down, the experiment of our young republic would have been over then and there. Anarchy would have taken over. So much for the "tax protesters."
The current legal definition of the militia is in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 311:
Yes, that's a fairly broad definition (and in the 18th century, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was even broader). But here's the key thing: outside of the National Guard and other state-sanctioned organizations, the broad definition applies to the mass of unorganized people. The minute private individuals attempt to organize groups of self-appointed "militia," without state sanction, these become private, partisan, rogue armies responsible to no one but themselves. The government has a right, indeed an obligation, to crack down on such rogue private armies, or else we'd be in danger of becoming another Iraq or Syria. One definition of a sovereign government is that it exercises a "monopoly of force."
Now, if you want to stage a 1776-style revolution, that's another story. But you better make sure that you win.
Edited to add: The earliest historical precedent of the government cracking down on a rogue private army was when President George Washington put on his general's uniform to lead the expedition against the Whiskey Rebellion. If the Whiskey Rebellion had not been put down, the experiment of our young republic would have been over then and there. Anarchy would have taken over. So much for the "tax protesters."
Last edited:
Once again, what is the basis for anyone thinking that these remarks about inner-city Chicago violence were about some movement (which I've never previously heard of) of surely 99% white and suburban/rural right-of-the-tea-party types?
I could be wrong, but without some additional information, I don't think that you guys and the interviewee in the original story are talking about the same group of people at all.
I could be wrong, but without some additional information, I don't think that you guys and the interviewee in the original story are talking about the same group of people at all.
There very well may be no connection, but mistrust and hysteria are what fuel conversation on internet boards, so it's not going to go away.
Goes to those who distrust the police continue to be the ones who get their attention.
As for this:
And since the militia is us, it seems to fit.
Goes to those who distrust the police continue to be the ones who get their attention.
As for this:
I have to say I see it daily on the job, at gun shows, weekends at the range, gunstores, Academy, Walmart, off duty cops, deputies, agents, and military retirees.
And since the militia is us, it seems to fit.
JustinJ's link show's what the FBI and ATF's interpretation of 3%'ers is. I doubt that they're referring to 3% of the US population.
Outlaw Man
Member
What you seem to be proposing here is a preemptive punishment. Except where there are laws concerning the number of armed people who can gather (and I know there are some locations that have or had those), organizing into a group, and even practicing tactics, is a legal activity. "Unorganized" is a lack of official organization. It does not prohibit self-organization. In fact, many of the Founders would have applauded that action as necessary to preserve liberty.AlexanderA said:
While I agree that many of these groups are certainly bordering on open rebellion, and many of them are looking for an excuse to try to overthrow the government, until they actually act on those desires, they're doing nothing wrong. Labeling them otherwise, particularly when lumping all of those groups under the label, is really no different from the extreme left labeling all gun owners as criminals and nutjobs.
Case in point. Washington didn't call in militia troops until the men had actually acted in rebellion (by forcing the tax collector to surrender his commission at gunpoint, surrounding the tax inspector's house, etc.). Washington also tried to negotiate with them peacefully, even after their open rebellion.AlexanderA said:
mrming
Member
I'm going to go out on a limb here... I haven't read the consitution lately.
I do however seem to recall that it outlined a system of checks and balances between government arms with provisions for regular replacement of various positions via some derviative of popular voting.
I recall absolutely zero, zilch, nada role in said checks and balances via federal millitary, state military, local militia nor any other armed group. You want to uphold the constitution? Congrats! But your rights under it as a US citizen end at voting and participating in the election process. You don't get to judge the intent of the words of it -- that was reserved to the courts. You don't get to write legislation -- that was reserved to Congress. You can't lead from the front either as that is reserved to the Executive.
Anything more than voting and obeying the heir of the chain-of-custody of the US gov isn't provided for in the founding document. If i'm wrong someone please point out article and section for the reset button by the populace other than voting... I shall wait. No, the declaration is not part of the Constitution.
In short as a citizen power starts and ends at voting. You can advocate for all the change you want via it. Organizing under arms while advocating for change is easily viewed by many as something entirely different and not upholding of the constitution.
I do however seem to recall that it outlined a system of checks and balances between government arms with provisions for regular replacement of various positions via some derviative of popular voting.
I recall absolutely zero, zilch, nada role in said checks and balances via federal millitary, state military, local militia nor any other armed group. You want to uphold the constitution? Congrats! But your rights under it as a US citizen end at voting and participating in the election process. You don't get to judge the intent of the words of it -- that was reserved to the courts. You don't get to write legislation -- that was reserved to Congress. You can't lead from the front either as that is reserved to the Executive.
Anything more than voting and obeying the heir of the chain-of-custody of the US gov isn't provided for in the founding document. If i'm wrong someone please point out article and section for the reset button by the populace other than voting... I shall wait. No, the declaration is not part of the Constitution.
In short as a citizen power starts and ends at voting. You can advocate for all the change you want via it. Organizing under arms while advocating for change is easily viewed by many as something entirely different and not upholding of the constitution.
So the ATF is doing their job and enforcing current gun laws. So why are we complaining about that again? Unless you sell guns on a large scale without the proper license.... Not sure how that even applies remotely.
It's funny... "We don't need more gun laws - enforce the existing ones!" Yet when the ATF is doing that people whine.
It's funny... "We don't need more gun laws - enforce the existing ones!" Yet when the ATF is doing that people whine.
HankB
Member
When I saw they were targeting "three percenters" the first thing I thought of was "What percent of BATF was involved in Fast & Furious? Maybe three percent?"
And as for "militias" . . . I thought most were virtually arms of the Federal government by now, considering the influx of informants and undercover operatives that joined up after the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City.
And as for "militias" . . . I thought most were virtually arms of the Federal government by now, considering the influx of informants and undercover operatives that joined up after the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City.
wally
Member
Enforcement vs. targeting. Racial profiling or guilt by association means nothing to you?
This is more abuse of power since this Administration appears to have gotten away with misusing the IRS to steal an election. An 18 second gap in a tape recording brought down Nixon, but 6 months of missing IRS Emails "computers will be computers" move along, nothing to see here
We the "unorganized" gun owners are indeed the "militia". The anti gunners want to associate the word with "wackos" to vilify the Second Amendment.
What were the British marching on Lexington and Concord to seize, that started the first American Revolution? What will start the second?
Overall, I think we'd likely have been better off if the Whiskey Rebellion had succeeded.
The original intent will be restoring the Constitution from a government that ignores it. There comes a point you either roll over and take it up the bum, or turn and fight. Those who see the the Constitution as an obstacle to their enlightened rule can never rest easy with armed Citizens about.
What needs to be made clear, and so far hasn't, is an answer to the question; "Is this operation designed to stop illegal movement of firearms into Chicago (or wherever) no matter who is involved; or is it targeted toward individuals or groups who have views that the current Washington establishment object to?"
The former would be legal law enforcement, the latter would be unconstitutional repression.
The former would be legal law enforcement, the latter would be unconstitutional repression.
krupparms
Member
+1^
Vern Humphrey
Member
And I reckon you think the IRS is "doing its job" by targeting conservative groups for special harassment?
- Status
