PDA

View Full Version : Economy, potential for Obama re-election spark militia growth


Thomas Veil
Mar 8, 2012, 06:08 AM
Man the armaments, men! Obama might actually win this thing!

Election, economy spark explosive growth of militias (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias)

The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 triggered an explosion in the number of militias and so-called patriot groups in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in its annual tally of such anti-government organizations.

There were 149 militias and patriot groups when Obama took office, compared to more than 1,200 today ó an increase of 755 percent, the nonprofit civil rights organization reported.

"The increase has just been astounding," said Mark Potok, editor-in-chief of the SPLC report. "The reality is that many of these groups are becoming more and more fearful that Barack Obama will win the re-election. You can see the anger rising along with that fear."

The SPLC defines the "patriot" movement as made up of conspiracy-minded individuals who see the federal government as their primary enemy. The movement includes paramilitary militias as well as groups of "sovereign citizens," who believe they are not subject to federal or state laws, nor obligated to pay federal taxes, according to SPLC.I'll acknowledge these loonies probably come up with these ideas on their own, or from other loonies. But I think guys like our good friends Limbaugh and the late Breitbart help stoke these fears. The internet, unfortunately, is another culprit -- a convenient way for crazy people to share with other crazy people.

Anyway, if you are worried about the economy and need a good job, you might want to think about criminal justice. Sounds like they're going to need people.

niuniu
Mar 8, 2012, 06:21 AM
149 + Internet + Obama's skin colour = 1200 ;)

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tea_robertson_1.png

rdowns
Mar 8, 2012, 07:47 AM
There were 149 militias and patriot groups when Obama took office, compared to more than 1,200 today ó an increase of 755 percent, the nonprofit civil rights organization reported.

Obama is a job creator.

Zombie Acorn
Mar 8, 2012, 07:50 AM
Their description of a militia doesn't sound right. Patriot group could mean the tea party. Who knows what else they are counting. If they aren't armed and practicing every week I wouldn't consider it a militia.

Obama will win because there are no other choices.

thewitt
Mar 8, 2012, 07:51 AM
But I think guys like our good friends Limbaugh and the late Breitbart help stoke these fears.

Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups.

yg17
Mar 8, 2012, 08:05 AM
149 + Internet + Obama's skin colour = 1200 ;)

Image (http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tea_robertson_1.png)



You can tell he wrote NIGGAR on a separate piece of paper and pasted it on. Did he spell it correctly with an E first and think it was spelled incorrectly?

Dumb racists....

leekohler
Mar 8, 2012, 08:15 AM
Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups.

Uh...right. Wow.

mcrain
Mar 8, 2012, 08:52 AM
Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups.

Out of curiosity, what is the fear that is being fed by the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press?

I'm fairly well connected and pay attention to the news on most of the major news sites, networks, and many of the internet sources, and keep an eye on sites that monitor other sites for anything out of the ordinary. I'm not aware of anything even remotely scary that the corporate owned media has pushed. On the other hand, they do report the crackpot theories that the GOP candidates and guys like Mitch McConnell spread. Those guys make it sound like the end of the world is near.

On the other hand, the Democrats in the news talk about working together to try to make things better. They talk about optimism and the ingenuity and productivity of the American worker. The Republicans, they bad mouth the Volt and any other American product, and just as recently as yesterday do things to reduce American competitiveness.

Yesterday, they voted along party lines to defeat a proposal by democrats to require all components of hydroelectric projects funded by the US government to be manufactured in the US. This is what happens when the Supreme Court Republicans let foreign money into the political process. The Republicans sell out American workers to benefit foreign corporations.

Unbelievable.

leekohler
Mar 8, 2012, 09:12 AM
Out of curiosity, what is the fear that is being fed by the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press?

I'm fairly well connected and pay attention to the news on most of the major news sites, networks, and many of the internet sources, and keep an eye on sites that monitor other sites for anything out of the ordinary. I'm not aware of anything even remotely scary that the corporate owned media has pushed. On the other hand, they do report the crackpot theories that the GOP candidates and guys like Mitch McConnell spread. Those guys make it sound like the end of the world is near.

On the other hand, the Democrats in the news talk about working together to try to make things better. They talk about optimism and the ingenuity and productivity of the American worker. The Republicans, they bad mouth the Volt and any other American product, and just as recently as yesterday do things to reduce American competitiveness.

Yesterday, they voted along party lines to defeat a proposal by democrats to require all components of hydroelectric projects funded by the US government to be manufactured in the US. This is what happens when the Supreme Court Republicans let foreign money into the political process. The Republicans sell out American workers to benefit foreign corporations.

Unbelievable.

Not really that unbelievable. They've been doing this forever.

flopticalcube
Mar 8, 2012, 09:14 AM
Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups.

If by "hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press" you mean Fox News, I'll agree.

Happybunny
Mar 8, 2012, 09:18 AM
Why am I not surprised.:(

Thomas Veil
Mar 8, 2012, 06:29 PM
Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups."American freedom hating press"?! Uh, you do realize that if this supposed journalistic effort to destroy our freedom came to pass, the first people they'd come after are...the journalists.

bradl
Mar 8, 2012, 06:32 PM
You can tell he wrote NIGGAR on a separate piece of paper and pasted it on. Did he spell it correctly with an E first and think it was spelled incorrectly?

Dumb racists....

Funnily enough, he actually has it spelled correctly. -AR is valid. -ER is derogatory.

BL.

firestarter
Mar 8, 2012, 07:12 PM
This is a good thing though, isn't it?

I thought it was part of the constitution that Americans can bear arms and form militias?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You guys are obviously just a load of freedom-hating commies that don't believe in good American values.

eric/
Mar 8, 2012, 07:27 PM
I don't really see why there is a lot of hate directed toward "militia" groups. So long as they're not bothering other people, I don't see how this is any more looney than any other group.

renewed
Mar 8, 2012, 07:30 PM
I don't really see why there is a lot of hate directed toward "militia" groups. So long as they're not bothering other people, I don't see how this is any more looney than any other group.

Because they aren't on the liberal bandwagon and that's just naughty.

mobilehaathi
Mar 8, 2012, 07:37 PM
Funnily enough, he actually has it spelled correctly. -AR is valid. -ER is derogatory.

BL.

For some reason, I'm not too concerned about the spelling.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 8, 2012, 07:41 PM
I don't really see why there is a lot of hate directed toward "militia" groups. So long as they're not bothering other people, I don't see how this is any more looney than any other group.

The militia movement is currently perhaps the most likely source of domestic terrorism. A couple recent cases in Alaska and Michigan (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/eerie-similarities-between-alaska-michigan-militia-extremists) are disturbing reminders of this. Most militias consist of relatively harmless survivalist conspiracy theorists. But some are more dangerous and are actively contemplating terrorist attacks.

mobilehaathi
Mar 8, 2012, 07:44 PM
The militia movement is currently perhaps the most likely source of domestic terrorism. A couple recent cases in Alaska and Michigan (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/eerie-similarities-between-alaska-michigan-militia-extremists) are disturbing reminders of this. Most militias consist of relatively harmless survivalist conspiracy theorists. But some are more dangerous and are actively contemplating terrorist attacks.

Surely not. I was watching TV the other day, and I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be scared of Muslims not Americans.

eric/
Mar 8, 2012, 07:48 PM
The militia movement is currently perhaps the most likely source of domestic terrorism. A couple recent cases in Alaska and Michigan (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/eerie-similarities-between-alaska-michigan-militia-extremists) are disturbing reminders of this. Most militias consist of relatively harmless survivalist conspiracy theorists. But some are more dangerous and are actively contemplating terrorist attacks.

So what should we do then?

Lord Blackadder
Mar 8, 2012, 07:52 PM
So what should we do then?

I was merely responding to the fact that you said you didn't understand the "hate" (though I personally wouldn't use that term) directed towards militia groups. The answer, as I articulated above, is that militias have a track record of crime, including, most worryingly, acts of domestic terrorism. Even if only a few groups out of the thousands that nominally exist are truly willing to carry out their threats, it stands to reason that we should be concerned about their threats.

As to what we should 'do', it's pretty simple - enforce the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you underdstand the concern 'directed towards militia groups' now?

Sedulous
Mar 8, 2012, 08:23 PM
I was merely responding to the fact that you said you didn't understand the "hate" (though I personally wouldn't use that term) directed towards militia groups. The answer, as I articulated above, is that militias have a track record of crime, including, most worryingly, acts of domestic terrorism. Even if only a few groups out of the thousands that nominally exist are truly willing to carry out their threats, it stands to reason that we should be concerned about their threats.

As to what we should 'do', it's pretty simple - enforce the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you underdstand the concern 'directed towards militia groups' now?

Don't bother... he is one of those that feels the ATF had no legitimate reason to have a warrant to search the Davidian compound in Waco.

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 08:33 PM
Actually it's your good friends in the hysterical, liberal, American freedom hating press who stoke the fear that feeds these groups.

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide source material to back up this assertion.

hulugu
Mar 8, 2012, 08:36 PM
Man the armaments, men! Obama might actually win this thing!

I'll acknowledge these loonies probably come up with these ideas on their own, or from other loonies. But I think guys like our good friends Limbaugh and the late Breitbart help stoke these fears. The internet, unfortunately, is another culprit -- a convenient way for crazy people to share with other crazy people.

Anyway, if you are worried about the economy and need a good job, you might want to think about criminal justice. Sounds like they're going to need people.

I went to a briefing from the SPLC during a conference and they noted that the rise and fall of militia groups was almost directly correlated with Democratic presidents. Clinton's run showed a remarkable rise in militias, while during Bush's era, the number of militia groups fell.

With this in mind, I'm unsurprised at the results of this new report.

Their description of a militia doesn't sound right. Patriot group could mean the tea party. Who knows what else they are counting. If they aren't armed and practicing every week I wouldn't consider it a militia.

Obama will win because there are no other choices.

From the SPLC:

...The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 1274 anti-government “Patriot” groups that were active in 2011. Of these groups, 334 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups.

Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist....

I don't really see why there is a lot of hate directed toward "militia" groups. So long as they're not bothering other people, I don't see how this is any more looney than any other group.

The SPLC tracks militia groups because of their extremism, their connection to direct criminal behavior including domestic terrorism and the often deep connection to other hate groups.

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 08:58 PM
I guess the question is, if we have a right to over throw the government for over stepping it's responsibilities, but people are arrested for doing so are we really a free nation?

hulugu
Mar 8, 2012, 09:04 PM
I guess the question is, if we have a right to over throw the government for over stepping it's responsibilities, but people are arrested for doing so are we really a free nation?

Well, first keep in mind that the SPLC isn't a government agency, they just track and evaluate hate groups throughout the US. Secondly, the groups that the SPLC tracks can be virulent, criminal enterprises and include neo-Nazis and anti-immigrant groups.

The people who get on this list aren't the local branch of the Tea Party or the Rotarians.

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 09:06 PM
Well, first keep in mind that the SPLC isn't a government agency, they just track and evaluate hate groups throughout the US. Secondly, the groups that the SPLC tracks can be virulent, criminal enterprises and include neo-Nazis and anti-immigrant groups.

The people who get on this list aren't the local branch of the Tea Party or the Rotarians.Do we still have an official militia or have those died off?

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 09:14 PM
I guess the question is, if we have a right to over throw the government for over stepping it's responsibilities ...

Overthrowing the government is a "right"? :confused:

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 09:15 PM
Overthrowing the government is a "right"? :confused:That is basically what the right to bare arms is and why it was written into the constitution.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 8, 2012, 09:18 PM
I guess the question is, if we have a right to over throw the government for over stepping it's responsibilities, but people are arrested for doing so are we really a free nation?

It's the government's job to handle law enforcement. Violent conspiracy theorists plotting terrorist attacks are criminals, not patriots.

Do we still have an official militia or have those died off?

The role of militias has long since been taken over by the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines - a standing professional military force, and the National Guard, which is a part-time professional reserve force.

mrkramer
Mar 8, 2012, 09:20 PM
Do we still have an official militia or have those died off?

I think the state militias kind of turned into the National Guard...

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 09:24 PM
I think the state militias kind of turned into the National Guard...This seems to be the best link I can find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 09:29 PM
That is basically what the right to bare arms is and why it was written into the constitution.


If we have that "right", then why was Timothy McVeigh tried and executed for his form of rebellion?

Couldn't anybody claim that the violence they perpetrated was a rebellion against a government that had overstepped it bounds and say they had the right to do so?

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 09:30 PM
If we have that "right", then why was Timothy McVeigh tried and executed for his form of rebellion?

Couldn't anybody claim that the violence they perpetrated was a form of rebellion against a government that had overstepped it bounds?Over throwing the government doesn't mean killing innocent people. That is the difference between terrorism and a takeover.

bradl
Mar 8, 2012, 09:36 PM
For some reason, I'm not too concerned about the spelling.

True, and I would agree; his spelling may be right, but grammatically, he's wrong (though I don't think it really matters).

Either way, the guy is an absolute tool.

BL.

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 09:37 PM
Over throwing the government doesn't mean killing innocent people. That is the difference between terrorism and a takeover.


Oh. So you mean vote a government out of office.

MacNut
Mar 8, 2012, 09:39 PM
Oh. So you mean vote a government out of office.Voting everyone out and starting over.

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 09:44 PM
Voting everyone out and starting over.

Well, voting is certainly a right.

I'll agree with that.

I suppose that according to the OP, we can expect to see more militia members volunteering at the polls.

Less blue-hairs.

More brown shirts.

So to speak.

eric/
Mar 8, 2012, 10:01 PM
I was merely responding to the fact that you said you didn't understand the "hate" (though I personally wouldn't use that term) directed towards militia groups. The answer, as I articulated above, is that militias have a track record of crime, including, most worryingly, acts of domestic terrorism. Even if only a few groups out of the thousands that nominally exist are truly willing to carry out their threats, it stands to reason that we should be concerned about their threats.

As to what we should 'do', it's pretty simple - enforce the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you underdstand the concern 'directed towards militia groups' now?

Eh, doesn't seem really worth noting. It appears to just be politicized fear mongering.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 8, 2012, 10:20 PM
Eh, doesn't seem really worth noting. It appears to just be politicized fear mongering.

I spoke a police officer acquaintance here in Alaska about the Schaeffer Cox case, and it' absolutely nothing to joke about. Those people were crazy and potentially harmful, and absolutely 'worth noting'.

Would you be showing the same lack of interest if these 'militias' were of middle eastern origin, or composed of Muslim radicals rather than white American anti-government radicals?

eric/
Mar 8, 2012, 10:21 PM
I spoke a police officer acquaintance here in Alaska about the Schaeffer Cox case, and it' absolutely nothing to joke about. Those people were crazy and potentially harmful, and absolutely 'worth noting'.

Would you be showing the same lack of interest if these 'militias' were of middle eastern origin, or composed of Muslim radicals rather than white American anti-government radicals?

Nope. Not one bit.

citizenzen
Mar 8, 2012, 10:37 PM
Nope. Not one bit.

Honest bigotry.

It's almost respectable.

Almost.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 8, 2012, 11:01 PM
Nope. Not one bit.

If that is the case, then what quality or qualities make white, American-born people less frightening to you, all else being equal?

bradl
Mar 8, 2012, 11:29 PM
Eh, doesn't seem really worth noting. It appears to just be politicized fear mongering.

Seeing that you would have been merely 6 years old at the time in 1995, and probably spent more time wondering about the next episode of Power Rangers than current events (justifiably so), you were more than likely not aware of the embarrassment the Michigan Militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia) made when they blamed the OKC bombing on the Japanese in retaliation for a US-backed Sarin gas attack on the subways in Tokyo, effectively causing a diplomatic strain between the US and Japan.

And you think that this is politicized fear mongering. There is viable proof that Militias are extreme. Not all militias, but the proof is there.

Please cite where this is just fearmongering.

BL.

Happybunny
Mar 9, 2012, 02:14 AM
Nope. Not one bit.

Every time you post eric/

I expect a "Bazinga!" :D

thekev
Mar 9, 2012, 02:33 AM
If that is the case, then what quality or qualities make white, American-born people less frightening to you, all else being equal?

Given the one line response, I have to wonder if he meant that as not one bit of interest (as in still wouldn't care). People really hate each other for strange reasons.

Lord Blackadder
Mar 9, 2012, 02:38 AM
Given the one line response, I have to wonder if he meant that as not one bit of interest (as in still wouldn't care). People really hate each other for strange reasons.

Perhaps responses of greater length than one line would clear things up...but I'm not holding my breath.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 08:17 AM
Honest bigotry.

It's almost respectable.

Almost.

Well, that was the answer he wanted from me, based on the phrasing of his question which had absolutely no basis on anything.

Why not entertain him?

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 01:55 PM
In a way I am glad /eric posts, otherwise it would be comparatively boring... and hopefully he will improve his debating skills since we give him much opportunity to practice.

Why is it that militias only seem to gear up around election time with a prospective Democrat win? Obama has already been in office for one term and hasn't taken everyone's bible and gun, so why the desire to "load up"?

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 01:58 PM
In a way I am glad /eric posts, otherwise it would be comparatively boring... and hopefully he will improve his debating skills since we give him much opportunity to practice.

Eh. For the most part from what I've seen on this forum it's just faulty arguments rehashed over and over.


Why is it that militias only seem to gear up around election time with a prospective Democrat win? Obama has already been in office for one term and hasn't taken everyone's bible and gun, so why the desire to "load up"?

Well I think it's because of the fear that further gun/ammo restrictions will be enacted. Of course it's logical, since the democratic platform has been one in favor of stricter gun control.

And it's not just militias that do this.

.Andy
Mar 9, 2012, 02:06 PM
Eh. For the most part from what I've seen on this forum it's just faulty arguments rehashed over and over.
It takes a special kind of person to claim that everyone else is wrong across multiple topics. Either you're an amazing trailblazing thinker or peculiar. It's quite a dichotomy. Either way I guess it would provide some empathy to militia members.

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 02:11 PM
Eh. For the most part from what I've seen on this forum it's just faulty arguments rehashed over and over.

You kinda need to demonstrate that arguments are faulty before you declare them faulty. I know we rarely agree on things but it doesn't mean that I am unwilling to recognize contrary points when they are made.

Well I think it's because of the fear that further gun/ammo restrictions will be enacted. Of course it's logical, since the democratic platform has been one in favor of stricter gun control.

And it's not just militias that do this.

Well this thread is about verifiable militia growth before elections. Yeah, I would have agreed with you before Obama was elected in the first place but he has yet to make any effort to take away guns and bibles... why would people suspect he would (or could) this time around? If anything, at least as a POTUS he has a track record on this issue compared to GOP candidates.

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 02:17 PM
Eh. For the most part from what I've seen on this forum it's just faulty arguments rehashed over and over.

You're like the driver who wonders why everyone is honking at him.

Well I think it's because of the fear that further gun/ammo restrictions will be enacted. Of course it's logical, since the democratic platform has been one in favor of stricter gun control.

And it's not just militias that do this.

Sure, but militia groups aren't just gun nuts (though if you venn diagramed gun nuts and militia types, you'd get a nice confluence) they're gun nuts who believe in conspiracy theories about the New World Order or the Plan de AztlŠn.

Moreover, the Obama administration has avoided gun legislation entirely, and yet gun owners have doubled-down on the belief that a major piece of legislation is about to come through.

Meanwhile, gun manufacturers are reaping huge profits on the paranoia of gun owners.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:22 PM
It takes a special kind of person to claim that everyone else is wrong across multiple topics. Either you're an amazing trailblazing thinker or peculiar. It's quite a dichotomy. Either way I guess it would provide some empathy to militia members.

I have no empathy toward them. I think it's really dumb, and most of those people probably don't have any military experience. They're just arm-chair generals as far as I'm concerned.

----------

You kinda need to demonstrate that arguments are faulty before you declare them faulty.

I do. :confused:

I know we rarely agree on things but it doesn't mean that I am unwilling to recognize contrary points when they are made.

I concur.



Well this thread is about verifiable militia growth before elections. Yeah, I would have agreed with you before Obama was elected in the first place but he has yet to make any effort to take away guns and bibles... why would people suspect he would (or could) this time around? If anything, at least as a POTUS he has a track record on this issue compared to GOP candidates.

Well the second time around he isn't gunning for reelection. It would make sense for him to be much more pushy toward getting law enacted that may be unpopular.

----------

You're like the driver who wonders why everyone is honking at him.

no

Sure, but militia groups aren't just gun nuts (though if you venn diagramed gun nuts and militia types, you'd get a nice confluence) they're gun nuts who believe in conspiracy theories about the New World Order or the Plan de AztlŠn

What is a gun nut?


Moreover, the Obama administration has avoided gun legislation entirely, and yet gun owners have doubled-down on the belief that a major piece of legislation is about to come through.

Well, as I stated above if there was a time for him to do it. That would be now.


Meanwhile, gun manufacturers are reaping huge profits on the paranoia of gun owners.

I don't see how it's any different than people running to Wal-Mart and buying case after case of water and underwear after the Tsunami in Japan. Who cares?

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 02:29 PM
...Well, as I stated above if there was a time for him to do it. That would be now.

But gun owners have been stocking up since 2008, four years before a second term.

...I don't see how it's any different than people running to Wal-Mart and buying case after case of water and underwear after the Tsunami in Japan. Who cares?

It's totally different. One was an reaction to a actual event, the other was a bunch of people acting in abject terror to the unlikely possibility of an event.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:31 PM
But gun owners have been stocking up

........and?



It's totally different. One was an reaction to a actual event, the other was a bunch of people acting in abject terror to the unlikely possibility of an event.

Well there was no chance of a Tsunami destroying Hawaii or California after the Japanese tsunami, yet people still stocked up on water and whatever. A perceived threat is a perceived threat. It doesn't matter how sill you or I think it is.

y2k if I really have to get specific to demonstrate my point

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 02:37 PM
........and?

See edit.

...Well there was no chance of a Tsunami destroying Hawaii or California after the Japanese tsunami, yet people still stocked up on water and whatever. A perceived threat is a perceived threat. It doesn't matter how sill you or I think it is.

y2k if I really have to get specific to demonstrate my point

I think these illustrate my point more clearly than yours. There was no chance that the tsunami would destroy Hawaii or California and yet people acted irrationally.
People also acted irrationally towards the "perceived" threat of Y2K. But, those were actual events.

Gun owners acted over a "perceived" threat without an actual event. They're even more irrational than people in Michigan who bought water and underwear because of the tsunami in Japan.

If we extend your logic that all "perceived" threat are the same, have a conversation with someone who thinks aliens can read their thoughts from space. It's a "perceived" threat, but it's still nuts.

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 02:41 PM
There is no way Obama or dysfunctional congress could ever change the constitution. The US will likely always have guns. The only possibility is outlawing weapons of a particularly lethal capacity. Therefore if militias are anticipating Obama might attempt to outlaw guns, I would wonder what kinds of guns and ammo are being stockpiled by expanding militias.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:45 PM
See edit.

Got it. And my response is that they were fearful that he would enact a law.


I think these illustrate my point more clearly than yours. There was no chance that the tsunami would destroy Hawaii or California and yet people acted irrationally.
People also acted irrationally towards the "perceived" threat of Y2K. But, those were actual events.

Gun owners acted over a "perceived" threat without an actual event. They're even more irrational than people in Michigan who bought water and underwear because of the tsunami in Japan.


I disagree. Those militias have precedence on their side. Look at the revolutions taking place in the world today. Those are actual events as well.


If we extend your logic that all "perceived" threat are the same, have a conversation with someone who thinks aliens can read their thoughts from space. It's a "perceived" threat, but it's still nuts.

I don't disagree. But I really don't see how people preparing for such a thing should have any effect on me, or legislation.

----------

There is no way Obama or dysfunctional congress could ever change the constitution. The US will likely always have guns. The only possibility is outlawing weapons of a particularly lethal capacity. Therefore if militias are anticipating Obama might attempt to outlaw guns, I would wonder what kinds of guns and ammo are being stockpiled by expanding militias.

they are worried about gun restrictions such as those in California, not outright banning of firearms.

yg17
Mar 9, 2012, 02:49 PM
I disagree. Those militias have precedence on their side. Look at the revolutions taking place in the world today. Those are actual events as well.

There's a big difference between a democratically elected president and an unelected dictator like Gadaffi or al-Assad.

If these militia morons don't like the president, they should get off their asses and vote, and participate in democracy. Stockpiling up on guns because they have wet dreams of overthrowing the government isn't going to change anything.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 02:51 PM
Well there was no chance of a Tsunami destroying Hawaii or California after the Japanese tsunami, yet people still stocked up on water and whatever.

Because preparing for the unknown effects of a natural disaster is somehow a bad thing?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:52 PM
There's a big difference between a democratically elected president and an unelected dictator like Gadaffi or al-Assad.

Revolutions can happen anywhere, at anytime under the right circumstances. So while it may not be likely, it is still very possible.


If these militia morons don't like the president, they should get off their asses and vote, and participate in democracy.

I'm beginning to think you're biased with comments like that.

But all in all. Getting out to vote isn't really a solution unless you win.


Stockpiling up on guns because they have wet dreams of overthrowing the government isn't going to change anything.

Than who cares what they do? It's their money. Why does it matter?

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 02:52 PM
...
I disagree. Those militias have precedence on their side. Look at the revolutions taking place in the world today. Those are actual events as well....

First, the rise of militias is tied to the presence of a Democrat in the Presidential office according to SPLC's research, so by that alone, the 'Arab Spring' would have nothing to do with the rise of militias. Moreover, the recent rise is correlated with November 2008, not the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in 2010.

Moreover, that again proves my point. If militia members think that the US resembles Libya (or another country) they've truly lost the pot, and moreover, they've ignored a primary lesson: militias are cannon fodder without significant weaponry (in Libya, this came from seized ammo dumps and required some fast hacks to make Toyota trucks into rocket launching platforms) and NATO air-support.


Than who cares what they do? It's their money. Why does it matter?

It's not the gun ownership that makes the SPLC worry (note the NRA isn't in that list, nor is Ducks Unlimited), rather it's the combination of weaponry, conspiracy-driven thinking, and criminal acts that makes the Center worry about militias.

The militia movement has been connected with domestic terrorism, hate crimes, graft and smuggling. It's not the guns.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:54 PM
Because preparing for the unknown effects of a natural disaster is somehow a bad thing?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not any worse than preparing as militias do.

----------

First, the rise of militias is tied to the presence of a Democrat in the Presidential office according to SPLC's research, so by that alone, the 'Arab Spring' would have nothing to do with the rise of militias. Moreover, the recent rise is correlated with November 2008, not the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in 2010.

I never stated the two were related. Only that revolutions still occur ergo it's a possibility ergo some people prepare for that possibility and are no more irrational than those preparing for natural disasters.


It's all a matter of degree to which you consider somebody to be insane for being prepared. I find them all to be insane. Natural disaster prepares, militias, and those waiting for aliens.

You just draw an arbitrary line. I call them all insane.

Moreover, that again proves my point. If militia members think that the US resembles Libya (or another country) they've truly lost the pot, and moreover, they've ignored a primary lesson: militias are cannon fodder without significant weaponry (in Libya, this came from seized ammo dumps and required some fast hacks to make Toyota trucks into rocket launching platforms) and NATO air-support.

It doesn't really prove your point. I can't speak for all militias, but the US wouldn't have to be Libya in order for something catastrophic to happen leading to a violent revolution, or something of that nature.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 02:56 PM
Not any worse than preparing as militias do.

Really?

Preparing for a natural disaster that you know is coming is the same as preparing for a battle largely driven by paranoid fantasy?

yg17
Mar 9, 2012, 02:57 PM
Revolutions can happen anywhere, at anytime under the right circumstances. So while it may not be likely, it is still very possible.

Bunch of rednecks in Bum**** Idaho vs US Military. I'd pay to see that.


I'm beginning to think you're biased with comments like that.

Not at all :rolleyes:


But all in all. Getting out to vote isn't really a solution unless you win.

And violence isn't a solution if you lose. That's how democracy works. You win some elections. You lose some elections. Liberals had to put up with 8 years of George W Bush, but we never started militias.


Than who cares what they do? It's their money. Why does it matter?

As someone who supports gun control and think the second amendment should be overturned, all those weapons are completely unnecessary, especially when they're buying them for the sole purpose of planning a violent overthrow of a democratically elected government (even if it never gets out of the planning phase)

mobilehaathi
Mar 9, 2012, 02:57 PM
I can't speak for all militias, but the US wouldn't have to be Libya in order for something catastrophic to happen leading to a violent revolution, or something of that nature.

Violent revolution in the US would be instantly quashed by the massive might of the US armed forces. Survivors would be tried with treason and executed.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 02:59 PM
Really?

Preparing for a natural disaster that you know is coming is the same as preparing for a battle largely driven by paranoid fantasy?

by the time you know the natural disaster is coming, you don't have time to prepare.

Basically they're all just paranoid.

----------

Violent revolution in the US would be instantly quashed by the massive might of the US armed forces. Survivors would be tried with treason and executed.


Well that's silly. Depending on the nature of the revolution, the US military would easily lose.

The strength of the US military is in sophisticated weapons, tanks, bombs, etc....

All are pretty much ineffective against entrenched urban environments while fighting a guerrilla war.

----------


Not at all :roll eyes:

As someone who supports gun control and think the second amendment should be overturned

k

mobilehaathi
Mar 9, 2012, 03:02 PM
Well that's silly. Depending on the nature of the revolution, the US military would easily lose.

The strength of the US military is in sophisticated weapons, tanks, bombs, etc....

All are pretty much ineffective against entrenched urban environments while fighting a guerrilla war.

While I agree that the US military has some difficulty with guerrilla warfare, I don't see them losing given the kind of resources they have. *shrug*

yg17
Mar 9, 2012, 03:02 PM
by the time you know the natural disaster is coming, you don't have time to prepare.

Basically they're all just paranoid.

The only natural disasters that really come without any warning are earthquakes, and tornadoes to some extent (a few minutes warning, enough to get to a basement. Severe storms that might produce twisters can be forecasted days in advance though). Tsunamis can have hours of warning, especially when the epicenter of the quake is thousands of miles away, and hurricanes provide days of warning.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 03:04 PM
While I agree that the US military has some difficulty with guerrilla warfare, I don't see them losing given the kind of resources they have. *shrug*

That's the thing. What good is the US Navy or Air force against guerrilla forces in NYC? The army and USMC would have to clear the city, person by person. how do you even know who is on your side?

Innocent people end up killed, then you have more insurgents, etc....

The US war machines is built to blow stuff up. And it's damn good at it. But when it comes to a fight like that? The advantage is completely gone.

----------

The only natural disasters that really come without any warning are earthquakes, and tornadoes to some extent (a few minutes warning, enough to get to a basement. Severe storms that might produce twisters can be forecasted days in advance though). Tsunamis can have hours of warning, especially when the epicenter of the quake is thousands of miles away, and hurricanes provide days of warning.

Hurricanes are about the only example. Exception doesn't prove the rule.

Either way, it's not like people go out and buy box after box of mens briefs because they think they are going to run out of underwear.

mobilehaathi
Mar 9, 2012, 03:06 PM
That's the thing. What good is the US Navy or Air force against guerrilla forces in NYC? The army and USMC would have to clear the city, person by person. how do you even know who is on your side?

Innocent people end up killed, then you have more insurgents, etc....

The US war machines is built to blow stuff up. And it's damn good at it. But when it comes to a fight like that? The advantage is completely gone.

In the end, they would have the exactly the same problem as when fighting foreign guerillas. But I think that the US would never allow a militia to grow to such a scale that they wouldn't be able to easily take them out.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
In the end, they would have the exactly the same problem as when fighting foreign guerillas. But I think that the US would never allow a militia to grow to such a scale that they wouldn't be able to easily take them out.

Well the thing is that it wouldn't be some militia to just start out. It would be a sudden social shift. And there are enough guns for everybody.

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
Not any worse than preparing as militias do.

----------



I never stated the two were related. Only that revolutions still occur ergo it's a possibility ergo some people prepare for that possibility and are no more irrational than those preparing for natural disasters.


It's all a matter of degree to which you consider somebody to be insane for being prepared. I find them all to be insane. Natural disaster prepares, militias, and those waiting for aliens.

You just draw an arbitrary line. I call them all insane.


It doesn't really prove your point. I can't speak for all militias, but the US wouldn't have to be Libya in order for something catastrophic to happen leading to a violent revolution, or something of that nature.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I doubt all militias are inherently crazy. I also have no problem with sane people owning a weapon. However it is clear some militias hold disturbing beliefs and occasionally incite members to perform terrible acts against "the government" (i.e. McVeigh). Obama in particular seems to draw a lot of unfounded ire. Therefore the growth of militias is troubling simply because it increases the critical mass of "crazy" that can drive less sensible people to feel the need to strike back at "the government".

A wise man once said "social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action". He was right.

yg17
Mar 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
Hurricanes are about the only example. Exception doesn't prove the rule.


It's not really an exception when you look at the 4 kinds of disasters:

Tornadoes - There's no warning, I'll give you that.
Earthquakes - There's no warning, but US infrastructure and building construction is pretty good that even with a massive quake, you're not going to see destruction like you saw in Haiti and there's no real need to stock up.
Tsunami - Hours of warning, enough to stock up on essentials and move to higher ground
Hurricane - Days of warning, enough to stock up, board up your windows, or evacuate, depending on predicted strength.


Either way, it's not like people go out and buy box after box of mens briefs because they think they are going to run out of underwear.
I don't even know where the hell you're going with this. We're talking about stocking up on food and water in the event of a natural disaster, not forgetting to do the laundry.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 03:11 PM
It's not really an exception when you look at the 4 kinds of disasters:

Tornadoes - There's no warning, I'll give you that.
Earthquakes - There's no warning, but US infrastructure and building construction is pretty good that even with a massive quake, you're not going to see destruction like you saw in Haiti and there's no real need to stock up.
Tsunami - Hours of warning, enough to stock up on essentials and move to higher ground
Hurricane - Days of warning, enough to stock up, board up your windows, or evacuate, depending on predicted strength.

Volcano? Not much warning.

Tsunami is caused by an earthquake, no warning there either. Unless you're on the other side of the world, than stockpiling stuff is dumb anyway and you should just move to higher ground.


I don't even know where the hell you're going with this. We're talking about stocking up on food and water in the event of a natural disaster, not forgetting to do the laundry.

Well, smart people wouldn't just go for water and things like that. You'd go for items you can barter with.

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 03:15 PM
...I never stated the two were related. Only that revolutions still occur ergo it's a possibility ergo some people prepare for that possibility and are no more irrational than those preparing for natural disasters.

So, since revolutions have occurred, people should feel free to prepare for revolutions sounds good until you recognize the real consequences in a Democracy when every time a political spectrum loses, it's arms up and prepares for the outbreak of armed conflict.

It doesn't really prove your point. I can't speak for all militias, but the US wouldn't have to be Libya in order for something catastrophic to happen leading to a violent revolution, or something of that nature.

A catastrophic change in the leadership of the United States is extraordinarily unlikely. Moreover, looking at the militias and their membership objectives, it seems more likely that such groups could just easily become government "gun thugs" as "freedom fighters."

And, that's ignoring a more dangerous shift in US leadership which would be the creation of a police state powerful enough to take these guys without extended armed conflict. If the history of revolutions has taught us anything, it's that without outside support, most militias lose dearly.

Of course, in today's world the militias are nativist criminals, more likely to smuggling cigarettes from Canada, plot against innocent civilians, or find new ways to bash people who don't look like them.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 03:16 PM
Well, smart people wouldn't just go for water and things like that. You'd go for items you can barter with.

Like underwear?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 03:21 PM
Like underwear?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Underwear, toilet paper, etc....

----------

So, since revolutions have occurred, people should feel free to prepare for revolutions sounds good until you recognize the real consequences in a Democracy when every time a political spectrum loses, it's arms up and prepares for the outbreak of armed conflict.

Well most of these militias are really just stockpiling on things they fear will be banned.



A catastrophic change in the leadership of the United States is extraordinarily unlikely. Moreover, looking at the militias and their membership objectives, it seems more likely that such groups could just easily become government "gun thugs" as "freedom fighters."

Possibly. Though I tend to find that these groups are mostly mincarchist.


And, that's ignoring a more dangerous shift in US leadership which would be the creation of a police state powerful enough to take these guys without extended armed conflict. If the history of revolutions has taught us anything, it's that without outside support, most militias lose dearly.

So you are saying that militias should be more heavily armed and encouraged?


Of course, in today's world the militias are nativist criminals, more likely to smuggling cigarettes from Canada, plot against innocent civilians, or find new ways to bash people who don't look like them.

I don't care what they do unless they do something that initiates violence. That applies universally to all people. So I don't give them any special consideration.

hulugu
Mar 9, 2012, 03:34 PM
...Well most of these militias are really just stockpiling on things they fear will be banned.

Irrationally.

Possibly. Though I tend to find that these groups are mostly mincarchist.

Some claim to be, but the reality on the ground is totally different, which is why the SPLC pays attention to them.

So you are saying that militias should be more heavily armed and encouraged?

I don't see how you got that from what I wrote.

I don't care what they do unless they do something that initiates violence. That applies universally to all people. So I don't give them any special consideration.

Paying attention to hate groups is the SPLC's bread and butter and the group has discovered hard links between militias, hate groups, and domestic terrorism/criminal enterprises. That's why they track these groups.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 03:38 PM
Irrationally.

Not really. Look at california gun laws.


Some claim to be, but the reality on the ground is totally different, which is why the SPLC pays attention to them.

I don't see any evidence that they aren't.



I don't see how you got that from what I wrote.

Well you are saying (and I agree) that a police state that could easily crush these groups would be very dangerous. So wouldn't you want to arm militias to prevent them from being crushed by the police state?


Paying attention to hate groups is the SPLC's bread and butter and the group has discovered hard links between militias, hate groups, and domestic terrorism/criminal enterprises. That's why they track these groups.

Right, but I don't think they deserve any special attention just because their militias. They should receive attention based on their actions.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 03:58 PM
Not really. Look at california gun laws.

I live in California. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of gun stores or shooting ranges in my town.

What gun laws are you referring to specifically?

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 04:09 PM
I live in California. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of gun stores or shooting ranges in my town.

What gun laws are you referring to specifically?

Don't bother. In the past /eric has clearly stated an opinion that any system capable of personal defense of self or property meets the definition of "arms" and therefore a civil right covered by the Constitution. This includes sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc..

mrkramer
Mar 9, 2012, 04:40 PM
Not really. Look at california gun laws.


What about them, I'm from California and have a lot of friends who own guns. They aren't really banned...

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 06:03 PM
... every time a political spectrum loses, it arms up and prepares for the outbreak of armed conflict.

Well most of these militias are really just stockpiling on things they fear will be banned.

Not really. Look at california gun laws.


Excerpts from Firearm FAQ, State of California Department of Justice [source (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#1)] ...

What is the process for purchasing a firearm in California?
All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption.

As part of the DROS process, the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

If the buyer is not a U.S. Citizen, then he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she is legally within the United States by providing to the firearms dealer with documentation that contains his/her Alien Registration Number or I-94 Number.

Purchasers of handguns are also required to provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification).

(PC Section 12071)

Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
While no limitation exists for the number of handguns that you may own,you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Handgun transactions related to law enforcement, private party transfers, returns to owners, and certain other specific circumstances are exempt from the one-handgun-per-30-day limit.

(PC section 12072(a)(9))

If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?
No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))

What are the restrictions on firearms possession?
Any person who has a conviction for any misdemeanor listed in Penal Code section 12021(c)(1) or for any felony, or is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, or has been held involuntarily as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103 is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Various other prohibitions exist for mental conditions, domestic restraining/protective orders, conditions of probation, and offenses committed as a juvenile.

PC Sections 12021 and 12021.1, Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 8100 - 8103)

May I carry a concealed firearm in California?
Except in extremely limited circumstances, you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid CCW license. CCW permits are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

(PC Sections 12025-12031, 12050-12054)

I live in another state and have a permit to carry a concealed handgun that was issued in my home state. Does my permit allow me to carry a concealed handgun while in California?
No. Weapons permits from other states are not valid in California.

(PC Sections 12025-12031)

What are the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) requirements?
Prior to the submission of DROS information for a handgun purchase, individuals purchasing handguns must present an HSC or provide the dealer with proof of exemption pursuant to California Penal Code Section 12081.

(PC sections 12071, 12081)

How do I get an HSC?
You may obtain an HSC by passing the DOJ HSC test administered by a DOJ Certified Instructor.

(PC sections 12800 - 12809)

I am moving into California and I own several handguns. What are the new-resident registration requirements?
You are considered to be a personal handgun importer as defined by California law. You may bring all of your otherwise California-legal firearms with you, but you must report all of your handguns to the DOJ within 60 days as required utilizing the New Resident Handgun Ownership Report, pdf. You are not required to report rifles or shotguns. You may not bring ammunition feeding devices with a capacity greater than ten rounds, machineguns, or assault weapons into California.

(PC sections 12001(n), 12072(f)(2))

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 06:05 PM
I live in California. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of gun stores or shooting ranges in my town.

What gun laws are you referring to specifically?

Ban on lower receivers for AR-15s and magazines larger than 10 rounds. Plus no concealed carry.

----------

Don't bother. In the past /eric has clearly stated an opinion that any system capable of personal defense of self or property meets the definition of "arms" and therefore a civil right covered by the Constitution. This includes sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc..

I have never made any statements related to the Constitution. I don't particularly care for arguments made based on the existence of the law.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 06:24 PM
Not really. Look at california gun laws.

Part II. Assault Weapons. [source (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#1)]

What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
There are three categories of assault weapons under California law. The first category is firearms listed on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list (Penal Code section 12276, subds (a), (b), and (c)). The second category of assault weapons is AK and AR-15 series weapons, pdf (Penal Code sections 12276 (e) and (f)). The third category of assault weapons is defined by specific generic characteristics (PC section 12276.1, SB 23).

What is the Kasler v. Lockyer California Supreme Court decision and what does it do?
This court decision upholds the constitutionality of the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is obligated to enforce the statute with respect to identification of AK and AR-15 series weapons. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

What are AK and AR-15 series weapons and how are they controlled?
Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

Are there any restrictions for the use of registered assault weapons?
Yes. A person who has a registered assault weapon may possess it only under certain conditions as specified in Penal Code section 12285. This section of law may be accessed on the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Website's Online Dangerous Weapons Control Laws.

•••

AR-15s in California [source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California)]

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act of 1989 banned Colt AR-15 rifles by name in the State of California. California's 2000 Assault Weapons ban went further and banned AR-15s made by other manufacturers by name such as Bushmaster, PWA, and Olympic Arms. After the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban there was a renewed interest in the AR-15 rifle and AR-15 styled rifles. It is estimated that some 400,000 California Legal AR-15s exist, with another 100,000 added each year.

The term 'AR-15' is used loosely and broadly by the non-shooting public to refer to any rifle that represents a semi-automatic (one bullet shot per pull of the trigger) version of the military full automatic (more than one round shot per pull of the trigger) version known as the M16. The M16 is a cosmetically similar military rifle to the AR-15 used worldwide by law enforcement and militaries and in the USA is strictly controlled by the National Firearms Act (NFA) enforced federally by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE or just 'ATF'). These following descriptions only adhere to the civilian legal semi-automatic versions in California which are under the purview and additional restrictions of California firearms law. Enforcement of California firearms laws are administrated by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) as they incur no federal triggers for firearms violations.

----------

Ban on lower receivers for AR-15s and magazines larger than 10 rounds. Plus no concealed carry.[COLOR="#808080"]

Poor baby. Sorry about the AR-15s.

But you can conceal carry.

You just have to apply for it.

And have a good reason.

----------

I have never made any statements related to the Constitution. I don't particularly care for arguments made based on the existence of the law.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 06:24 PM
Point still stands

Thanks for proving it. And you can only concealed carry in extreme circumstances, whereas it's the norm in a lot of other states.

ergo

you proved my point.

and you'll find no post of mine referencing the law as a point of argument. Law is based on philosophical values, hence, any argument about the law reverts to the philosophical point behind the law, hence I argue philosophy, not law.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 06:31 PM
Point still stands

Thanks for proving it.


No problem. I'm happy to bring facts to light.

I wasn't too sure you'd ever get around to sourcing anything.

Too much heavy lifting, eh?

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 07:15 PM
I have never made any statements related to the Constitution. I don't particularly care for arguments made based on the existence of the law.

That was what I got from our lengthy debate. Was not your point that assault rifles, RPGs, and the alike valid weapons for self defense and should be legal? But weapons that cause excessive collateral damage (i.e. a nuclear weapon) not a valid weapon for self defense. I'm sure many militias wouldn't even agree with that much.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 07:33 PM
That was what I got from our lengthy debate. Was not your point that assault rifles, RPGs, and the alike valid weapons for self defense and should be legal? But weapons that cause excessive collateral damage (i.e. a nuclear weapon) not a valid weapon for self defense. I'm sure many militias wouldn't even agree with that much.

It wasn't so much about legal. It's just that you can never use a nuclear weapon for self defense.

citizenzen
Mar 9, 2012, 07:53 PM
It wasn't so much about legal. It's just that you can never use a nuclear weapon for self defense.

Never?

That covers a lot of ground.

What if an alien armada was repelled by an ICBM attack?

That would sound like self defense to me.

Sedulous
Mar 9, 2012, 08:08 PM
It wasn't so much about legal. It's just that you can never use a nuclear weapon for self defense.

Whatever. Problems arise when there are disagreements about what limits a government should place on personal liberty. This is often a primary driving force behind militias. Odd that the argument over having guns also drives the fears that make people want to have more guns.

eric/
Mar 9, 2012, 08:33 PM
I'm not going to derail the thread. Comments noted.

Happybunny
Mar 10, 2012, 05:16 AM
Point still stands

Thanks for proving it. And you can only concealed carry in extreme circumstances, whereas it's the norm in a lot of other states.

ergo

you proved my point.

and you'll find no post of mine referencing the law as a point of argument. Law is based on philosophical values, hence, any argument about the law reverts to the philosophical point behind the law, hence I argue philosophy, not law.


Come on that's gotta be a 'Bazinga' :rolleyes:

Thomas Veil
Mar 10, 2012, 05:57 AM
^ The pizza I ate last night is based on cheese, flour, sauce, pepperoni and heat.

I think next time I call Pizza Hut, I'll ask for a medium cheese, flour, sauce, pepperoni and heat. :rolleyes:

eric/
Mar 10, 2012, 01:32 PM
Come on that's gotta be a 'Bazinga' :rolleyes:

Nope.

though I do like the reference, BBT is a great show

MadeTheSwitch
Mar 10, 2012, 01:51 PM
I disagree. Those militias have precedence on their side. Look at the revolutions taking place in the world today. Those are actual events as well.

But the small potatoes revolutions of other countries with less arms do not begin to compare to the United States. The militias have their guns. Obama (or any other President) have tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, drones, and nuclear missiles at their disposal. Guess who wins?

Revolutions can happen anywhere, at anytime under the right circumstances. So while it may not be likely, it is still very possible.


See above. It's not even a contest. Militias are irrelevant and pointless. They had relevance when America was fighting the British for independence. They no longer do now in the age of WMD's, robotic drones and other high tech weaponry. Their weapon gathering for some future fight is like cavemen trying to gather stones to throw at spaceships.

citizenzen
Mar 10, 2012, 01:58 PM
But the small potatoes revolutions of other countries with less arms do not begin to compare to the United States. The militias have their guns. Obama (or any other President) have tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, drones, and nuclear missiles at their disposal. Guess who wins?

Here's one other thing to note ...

Revolutions don't just involve the people vs. the government. The general population itself splinters into factions and fights against each other.

If you think revolution is a good idea, then you think roving death squads are a good idea, armed roadblocks are a good idea, and neighbors killing neighbors is a good idea. Because that's what you'd get and more if revolution broke out.

eric/
Mar 10, 2012, 02:07 PM
But the small potatoes revolutions of other countries with less arms do not begin to compare to the United States. The militias have their guns. Obama (or any other President) have tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, subs, drones, and nuclear missiles at their disposal. Guess who wins?

Well nuclear weapons can't be used so both those and submarines are immediately a non-factor.

Drones are effective, but that effectiveness would be very limited.

and tanks aren't effective in urban environments, aircraft carriers and planes aren't good against guerrilla forces.

So against a determined guerrilla force, the US military's advantages are just about eliminated.



See above. It's not even a contest. Militias are irrelevant and pointless. They had relevance when America was fighting the British for independence. They no longer do now in the age of WMD's, robotic drones and other high tech weaponry. Their weapon gathering for some future fight is like cavemen trying to gather stones to throw at spaceships.

See above.

.Andy
Mar 10, 2012, 03:09 PM
tanks aren't effective in urban environments.
Neither are overweight middle aged militia members with camo pants. Especially when confronted by stairs.

MadeTheSwitch
Mar 11, 2012, 02:25 PM
Well nuclear weapons can't be used so both those and submarines are immediately a non-factor.
Oh, are you under the mistaken impression that submarines can only fire nuclear missiles?
Drones are effective, but that effectiveness would be very limited.
Limited, how? Either they are effective or they are not. Which is it?
and tanks aren't effective in urban environments,
Ask the Chinese and Syrians if they think that's the the case.
aircraft carriers and planes aren't good against guerrilla forces.
Sure they are. Find out their base of operation, drop a missile on it...boom. Done.
So against a determined guerrilla force, the US military's advantages are just about eliminated.
Not even close to being true, but you go ahead and continue to think that. For an example of what mere guns can do against tanks, mortar shells, and high-tech intelligence, look to what the Syrian people are going through right now. That's what a militia's chances would be too.

takao
Mar 11, 2012, 03:27 PM
Well nuclear weapons can't be used so both those and submarines are immediately a non-factor.

Drones are effective, but that effectiveness would be very limited.

and tanks aren't effective in urban environments, aircraft carriers and planes aren't good against guerrilla forces.


MBTs in an urban environment are only ineffective when not supported by infantry and when the other side is equipped with lots of anti tanks RPGs etc.

against light infantry (like a militia) without anti tank capabilities they are still next to invincible

and surprisingly you leave out armored combat helicopters which are the bane of any guerrilla force

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 05:52 PM
Neither are overweight middle aged militia members with camo pants. Especially when confronted by stairs.

*sigh*

Prove that all militia members are overweight, middle ages, and have camo pants.

Prove that people who aren't more fit wouldn't join guerrilla forces.

----------

MBTs in an urban environment are only ineffective when not supported by infantry and when the other side is equipped with lots of anti tanks RPGs etc.

against light infantry (like a militia) without anti tank capabilities they are still next to invincible

and surprisingly you leave out armored combat helicopters which are the bane of any guerrilla force

That doesn't work in urban environments like, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc... There isn't enough infantry, which is the problem.

----------

Oh, are you under the mistaken impression that submarines can only fire nuclear missiles?

No. They can fire topedos (useless), cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons.


Limited, how? Either they are effective or they are not. Which is it?

Well, the drones are effective, but they can't be everywhere at once. And how do you distinguish "good" Americans from "bad" rebels?


Ask the Chinese and Syrians if they think that's the the case.

Relevance?


Sure they are. Find out their base of operation, drop a missile on it...boom. Done.

And if their base of operations is somewhere highly populated?

and you kill innocent civilians?

hence the problem in Afghanistan.


Not even close to being true, but you go ahead and continue to think that. For an example of what mere guns can do against tanks, mortar shells, and high-tech intelligence, look to what the Syrian people are going through right now. That's what a militia's chances would be too.

different circumstances.

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 06:34 PM
Prove that all militia members are overweight, middle ages, and have camo pants.

Prove that people who aren't more fit wouldn't join guerrilla forces.


Prove that militia members wouldn't turn on the citizens.

Do you really want to put your life into the hands of some yahoo just because he was the one who stocked up on weapons?

[Anticipates question: Prove all militia members are yahoos.]

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 06:45 PM
Prove that militia members wouldn't turn on the citizens.

I never claimed they would or wouldn't. So I can't answer that. :confused:


Do you really want to put your life into the hands of some yahoo just because he was the one who stocked up on weapons?

I don't see what this has to do with anything.


[Anticipates question: Prove all militia members are yahoos.]

Yup. Prove it.

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 06:50 PM
I don't see what this has to do with anything.

You seem enamored with the idea of armed revolution against the government.

I'm just wondering if you really understand the price that would be paid for it.

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 06:54 PM
You seem enamored with the idea of armed revolution against the government.

I'm just wondering if you really understand the price that would be paid for it.

I'm not enamored at all. Why would you think that?

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 06:55 PM
I'm not enamored at all. Why would you think that?

Past posts.

Maybe I've misinterpreted them.

I am a bit of a skimmer.

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 07:00 PM
Past posts.

Maybe I've misinterpreted them.

I am a bit of a skimmer.

Yeah you're misinterpreting them. I don't like militias at all.Though I support their right to organize, and my comments regarding a conflict with the US military is based on logic, not my like or dislike for militias.

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 07:02 PM
Yeah you're misinterpreting them. I don't like militias at all.Though I support their right to organize ...

A lot of stupid people organize for a lot of stupid reasons.

Militias aren't the first or last.

[Anticipates question ...]

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 07:12 PM
A lot of stupid people organize for a lot of stupid reasons.

Militias aren't the first or last.

[Anticipates question ...]

Prove that they are stupid

mobilehaathi
Mar 11, 2012, 07:31 PM
Prove that they are stupid

Prove that the US military could not wipe out militias.

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 07:39 PM
Prove that the US military could not wipe out militias.

Well, truthfully it's impossible to actually know unless the event occurs. But we can predict with some reasonable accuracy the outcome based on the strategic abilities of the United States military. Based on the fact that the US military is mostly equipped to fight a conventional war, I'd say not likely.

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 07:42 PM
Prove that they are stupid

Hey! You asked the question I thought you would.

That statement was 100% personal opinion, based on my own prejudices and preconceived notions.

No evidence necessary.

eric/
Mar 11, 2012, 07:43 PM
Hey! You asked the question I thought you would.

That statement was 100% personal opinion, based on my own prejudices and preconceived notions.

No evidence necessary.

Well, anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless. And stereotyping is obviously a bad thing.

At least you admit it thought I suppose.

citizenzen
Mar 11, 2012, 07:51 PM
Well, anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless. And stereotyping is obviously a bad thing.

At least you admit it thought I suppose.

At least. ;)

Sometimes I have a little fun.

mobilehaathi
Mar 11, 2012, 07:52 PM
Well, truthfully it's impossible to actually know unless the event occurs. But we can predict with some reasonable accuracy the outcome based on the strategic abilities of the United States military. Based on the fact that the US military is mostly equipped to fight a conventional war, I'd say not likely.

It is nice to see you shed your black and white thinking.

interrobang
Mar 11, 2012, 08:28 PM
That is basically what the right to bare arms is and why it was written into the constitution.

I'm a big fan of the right to bare arms. Sometimes it's just too hot to wear sleeves. Also, many ladies (and some dudes) have nice-looking arms.

niuniu
Mar 11, 2012, 08:45 PM
Neither are overweight middle aged militia members with camo pants. Especially when confronted by stairs.

I'm a big fan of the right to bare arms. Sometimes it's just too hot to wear sleeves. Also, many ladies (and some dudes) have nice-looking arms.

Thread is producing some stunners :p

hulugu
Mar 12, 2012, 12:40 AM
...
That doesn't work in urban environments like, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc... There isn't enough infantry, which is the problem.

Your arguments against the US military presupposes a full-scale rebellion throughout the United States, including the metropolises. In this scenario, the military would have a hard time destroying small groups of guerrilla fighters without resulting civilian casualties.

Of course, as we've seen in Syria, small bands of guerrilla fighters fare poorly under daily artillery strikes.

If you were planning a tyrannical rise to power, would you wait until guerrilla forcesówith a core of militia fighters at its centerócoalesce in major metropolitan areas? No, you have them all arrested while running a powerful PR campaign.

MadeTheSwitch
Mar 12, 2012, 04:15 AM
No. They can fire topedos (useless), cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons.
Thank you. So why frame it as only a nuclear option in your response to me if you realize that they could fire conventional weapons as well?

Well, the drones are effective, but they can't be everywhere at once. And how do you distinguish "good" Americans from "bad" rebels?
Intelligence. Eavesdropping on cell phone and internet communication. It's not a perfect science, but then neither is anything else either. Although you are broadening the scope of the original point, which was that militias could be wiped out by the military, not what collateral damage there would be.

Relevance?
Can't get much more relevant than recent real world examples of what happens when people with only guns go up against a mightier military force.

And if their base of operations is somewhere highly populated? And you kill innocent civilians? hence the problem in Afghanistan.
So you can draw comparisons to other counties but other people cannot? And again, you are broadening the original scope. Given militias mostly rural makeup it is highly unlikely that their base of operation would be in a highly populated area. They aren't all going to leave places like Montana and the deep south and move to the big city. Green Acres this is not. lol

Yeah you're misinterpreting them. I don't like militias at all.Though I support their right to organize, and my comments regarding a conflict with the US military is based on logic, not my like or dislike for militias.

Nothing you have stated is very logical so far. Perhaps we have different concepts of how many people would be involved in this supposed uprising. I get the impression you think it would be a significant number spread everywhere and I just don't think history or reality supports that.

Happybunny
Mar 12, 2012, 05:11 AM
After reading this I have to believe, that some of you have been playing too many computer games. :D

eric/
Mar 12, 2012, 08:19 AM
It is nice to see you shed your black and white thinking.

I never think black and white.

----------

Thank you. So why frame it as only a nuclear option in your response to me if you realize that they could fire conventional weapons as well?

Well, basically I don't believe that cruise missiles will be cost effective/worth it to use to take out small bands of targets in urban environments.


Intelligence. Eavesdropping on cell phone and internet communication. It's not a perfect science, but then neither is anything else either. Although you are broadening the scope of the original point, which was that militias could be wiped out by the military, not what collateral damage there would be.

The collateral damage is part of the whole scenario.


Can't get much more relevant than recent real world examples of what happens when people with only guns go up against a mightier military force.

Different circumstances.


So you can draw comparisons to other counties but other people cannot? And again, you are broadening the original scope. Given militias mostly rural makeup it is highly unlikely that their base of operation would be in a highly populated area. They aren't all going to leave places like Montana and the deep south and move to the big city. Green Acres this is not. lol

Implying that any sort of full scale rebellion requiring military intervention would be confined to rural environments, instead of urban environments where the US population is mostly concentrated.



Nothing you have stated is very logical so far.

Well that's just untrue.


Perhaps we have different concepts of how many people would be involved in this supposed uprising. I get the impression you think it would be a significant number spread everywhere and I just don't think history or reality supports that.

If the US military was required to put down a rebellion, it's pretty widespread with large numbers of people. Anything else the FBI/police would be able to take care of.

----------

Your arguments against the US military presupposes a full-scale rebellion throughout the United States, including the metropolises. In this scenario, the military would have a hard time destroying small groups of guerrilla fighters without resulting civilian casualties.

As I stated above, any sort of rebellion requiring US military intervention (using mechanized infantry, cruise missiles, aircraft, etc....) is by nature a large, full-scale rebellion.

Of course, as we've seen in Syria, small bands of guerrilla fighters fare poorly under daily artillery strikes.

And in Afghanistan they are doing fairly well, both against US forces and against Russian bombardment in the 80s (or whenever that was). So while I don't like to apply those instances to one in the US, which would be fundamentally different, you can see that there are instances of where guerrilla fighters fare well under artillary/aerial bombardment.


If you were planning a tyrannical rise to power, would you wait until guerrilla forcesówith a core of militia fighters at its centerócoalesce in major metropolitan areas? No, you have them all arrested while running a powerful PR campaign.

Again, I'm only dealing with the situation as was presented. If you require tanks and whatnot, you've already got a full-scale rebellion.

The easiest way to take control is to just buy Congress. Which is what corporations have done.

Iscariot
Mar 12, 2012, 09:53 AM
And how do you distinguish "good" Americans from "bad" rebels?

Same way you distinguish bad afghanis from good ones I'd wager. That worked out well didn't it?

eric/
Mar 12, 2012, 10:00 AM
Same way you distinguish bad afghanis from good ones I'd wager. That worked out well didn't it?

Exactly my point.

MadeTheSwitch
Mar 12, 2012, 01:27 PM
Well, basically I don't believe that cruise missiles will be cost effective/worth it to use to take out small bands of targets in urban environments.
Okay, so now I am totally confused on what point you are trying to make., If you are talking "small bands of targets in urban environments" you've readily admitted in the same post that the FBI or police could take care of the issue. So is it that you don't think a larger one could be dealt with by anyone, even the military? Is that your point?

The collateral damage is part of the whole scenario. Well, in your mind maybe but no one was discussing it (including you) originally.

you can see that there are instances of where guerrilla fighters fare well under artillary/aerial bombardment.
And there are examples out there in the world where they do not fare so well...again the examples that you continue to want to reject as "different" while continuing to use a different outside example of your own.