1995 ADL: 'The Militia Menace Grows'
Ted Frank
David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
>the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
>mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
>militias,
Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
--
m...@radix.net "Why she had to go
I don't know
She wouldn't say." -- Lenin/McCarthy
John Luebbers
semetic, which is just an ADL buzzword. Go back to running your bar.
Semitic Avenger
and the six-pointed star."
From William Vollmann's article on Gritz in Spin Magazine.
m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
>David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
>>the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
>>mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
>>militias,
>Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
>I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
>running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
>--
>m...@radix.net "Why she had to go
> I don't know
> She wouldn't say." -- Lenin/McCarthy
-------------------------------------
"If they give you ruled paper,
Write the other way."
--Juan Ramon Jimenez
David Golden
: In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
: David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
: >the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
: >mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
: >militias,
: Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
: I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
: running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
: nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
: --
Okay, Ted, there is a 'trace' of anti-semitism found in the California
militias. However you can look almost anywhere in American society
and see more anti-semitism than what has been found to date in the
California militias. The ADL has made a mockery of itself, end of
discussion.
Jacob A. Minas
> In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
> David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
> >the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
> >mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
> >militias,
>
> Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
>
> I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
Many mainstream black organizations have "organizational ties" (what does
that mean exactly, they let him sit at the conference table?) to Louis
Farrakhan and N.O.I. Does that make them anti-Semites per se? I mean,
many quite respectable black leaders will say "well lets hear him out" out
and may go as far as to organize events with him, like the Million Man
March. Even whites, especially white conservatives, will make apologetic
comments like "he has said some very distasteful thing but he has made
great strides in instilling a sense of personal responsibility in the
black community." Still the guy has said some of the weirdest
anti-Semitic stuff that I have ever heard.
I imagine some militia guys are racists and some are not. I imagine the
percentage that are is much higher than in the general population. But
they don't need to be racist for one to find them scary, because most of
them express some pretty zany political ideas, apart from white supremacy.
No doubt, it is not cool to be soft on the militias. But you don't need
to be soft on the militias to have some doubts about the law enforcement
techniques that liberal interest groups and the Justice Department
advocate to deal with them. Yeah, you need to be some wacko to make David
Koresh into a martyr. Its quite another thing to say that law enforcement
has been spotless about it. I just find the attitude of liberal interest
groups towards Waco and counterterrorism in general, reminds me of various
apologies along the line of "Hoover and the FBI can't be wrong," that
conservatives used to make for extensive and possibly unconstitutional
counterterrorism tactics in the 1960s.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Awesome1
>
>In article <jam81-16039...@dialup157.cc.columbia.edu>,
>Jacob A. Minas <ja...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4iem9f$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>>> I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
>>> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>>> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
>>
>>Many mainstream black organizations have "organizational ties" (what does
>>that mean exactly, they let him sit at the conference table?) to Louis
>>Farrakhan and N.O.I. Does that make them anti-Semites per se?
>
>writings of other anti-Semites, and then does nothing to disassociate
>itself from the anti-Semitism preached by the people they associate with
>and that lead them, then it would be a matter of concern for an
>organization that tracks anti-Semitism. Perhaps that organization might
>even release a report on the subject. When someone attacks that report,
>making the demonstrably false claim that there was not a trace of
>anti-Semitism in the aforementioned organization, as Mr. Golden did, their
>credibility is suspect.
>
>These concerns are not trivial ones when we are discussing paramilitary
>organizations that have, in America^s recent history, assassinated Jews
>and others thought to be Jewish for motives of pure hatred. Nor are they
>trivial given the similarity of the militias to the S.A. of the Weimar
>Republic.
You of course can show these similarities? Or is this another example
of the "inuendo" so popular with the liberal propagandists. Actually a
better example of a non trivial similarity is the liberal media and the
media of 1930's Germany. Actually they've improved on Dr. Geobbles
methods, but then if you can't see that......well.
E. Vigilance
Awesome1
>
>In article <4iem9f$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
>> David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
>> >the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
>> >mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
>> >militias,
>>
>> Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
>>
>> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
>
>Many mainstream black organizations have "organizational ties" (what does
>that mean exactly, they let him sit at the conference table?) to Louis
>many quite respectable black leaders will say "well lets hear him out" out
>and may go as far as to organize events with him, like the Million Man
>March. Even whites, especially white conservatives, will make apologetic
>comments like "he has said some very distasteful thing but he has made
>great strides in instilling a sense of personal responsibility in the
>black community." Still the guy has said some of the weirdest
>anti-Semitic stuff that I have ever heard.
Anti semitic and otherwise...
>
>I imagine some militia guys are racists and some are not. I imagine the
>percentage that are is much higher than in the general population. But
>they don't need to be racist for one to find them scary, because most of
>them express some pretty zany political ideas, apart from white supremacy.
Yeah like their fervent belief in those radical documents, Constitution
Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independance. Very Zany!
>
>No doubt, it is not cool to be soft on the militias.
No, but it is cool to "follow" the rules, no doubt.
But you don't need
>to be soft on the militias to have some doubts about the law enforcement
>techniques that liberal interest groups and the Justice Department
>advocate to deal with them.
Just some doubts?
Yeah, you need to be some wacko to make David
>Koresh into a martyr.
Not to mention how wacky you'd have to be to get upset over those innocent
women and children that were murdered.
Its quite another thing to say that law enforcement
>has been spotless about it. I just find the attitude of liberal interest
>groups towards Waco and counterterrorism in general, reminds me of various
>apologies along the line of "Hoover and the FBI can't be wrong," that
>conservatives used to make for extensive and possibly unconstitutional
>counterterrorism tactics in the 1960s.
Jake forget the 60's. If you want a better reference point for what is going
on with the Klinton government, you might want to research the history of 1933
Germany. I know thats a "radical" thing to say, but I'm just one of those
zany radicals.
E. Vigilance
Awesome1
>
>In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
>David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
>>the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
>>mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
>>militias,
>
>Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
>
>I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
>running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
Oh I see, now I get it, if you use the word Jew in a sentence you're
an anti-semite. Thaks for clearing that up comrade Lenin.
E. Vigilance
Awesome1
>
>A quote from Mr. Gritz: "My battle is between the five-pointed star
>and the six-pointed star."
>
>From William Vollmann's article on Gritz in Spin Magazine.
Well that certainly clears it all up. You'd be great on the evening news.
E. Vigilance
David Snyder
Golden) wrote:
> [...]
> Incidentally, the Jewish community (or to be more precise, the
> left-leaning, non-traditional component) is doing a
> wonderful job fueling anti-semitism by launching a political
> attack on militias. [...]
Hmmm, I think that the right-leaning Jewish community is doing a wonderful
job fueling anti-semitism by criticizing sensitive groups on the left.
I should hope that Jews are not to be censored for "creating"
anti-semitism as this is anti-semetic in and of itself, although I doubt
if anything the Left of the Jewish community will increase the nascient
anti-semitism always present on the Right, while the anti-semetism on the
Left does seem reactive. But that is neither here nor there, the fact
that Right-leaning Jews should make such comments is indicative of
something... I wish I had the words to vocalize what.
David
John Luebbers
ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. Minas) writes:
>
>In article <4iem9f$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank)
>
>> In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
>> David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a
local)
>> >the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails
to
>> >mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the
California
>> >militias,
>>
>> Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
>>
>> I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s
former
>> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
>
does
>that mean exactly, they let him sit at the conference table?) to Louis
>Farrakhan and N.O.I. Does that make them anti-Semites per se? I
mean,
>many quite respectable black leaders will say "well lets hear him out"
out
>and may go as far as to organize events with him, like the Million Man
>March. Even whites, especially white conservatives, will make
apologetic
>comments like "he has said some very distasteful thing but he has made
>great strides in instilling a sense of personal responsibility in the
>black community." Still the guy has said some of the weirdest
>anti-Semitic stuff that I have ever heard.
>
the
>percentage that are is much higher than in the general population.
But
>they don't need to be racist for one to find them scary, because most
of
>them express some pretty zany political ideas, apart from white
supremacy.
>
need
>to be soft on the militias to have some doubts about the law
enforcement
>techniques that liberal interest groups and the Justice Department
David
>Koresh into a martyr. Its quite another thing to say that law
enforcement
>has been spotless about it. I just find the attitude of liberal
interest
>groups towards Waco and counterterrorism in general, reminds me of
various
>apologies along the line of "Hoover and the FBI can't be wrong," that
>conservatives used to make for extensive and possibly unconstitutional
>counterterrorism tactics in the 1960s.
>
>ja...@columbia.edu
Can you cite any "zany" conspiracy theories? Koresh is a martyr and
rightfully so. He was executed plain and simple. I didnt agree with all
his religious beliefs, but he sure had a right to practice them. I
doubt if there are more racists in militias than the general populace.
Alan Horowitz
Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of girls who have been
killed and raped by the Kennedy clan.
Alan Horowitz
Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of Charles Schumer's
bodyguards who have been arrested for illegaly carrying firearms into the
US Capitol building.
Alan Horowitz
Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of acts of felony bank
fraud by Hillary Clinton.
Ted Frank
>the militias pose a threat to the *Jewish* community.
The fact that a number of militias are run by folk who do call
for extermination of Jews, and that others are run by folk who
killed Alan Berg because he was Jewish, is plenty reason enough
to consider a number of militias threats to free society and
Jewish safety.
> And the ADL is seriously damaging its reputation
>and consequently reducing its effectiveness in fighting
>defamatory behavior and language.
Only among the ani-Semitic who are afraid of the light of truth.
David Golden
[snip]
: The fact remains that most militias are demonstrably affiliated with or
: run by neo-Nazi groups, and that it is a blatant lie to claim that none
: are.
Ted Frank loses 10 more points for making a patently stupid (and false)
comment.
Again, take up my challenge. Call Ms A Steinberg of the ADL office in San
Francisco and ask her what percent of the militia in California are known
to be neo-Nazi, or for that matter, even 'affiliated' with neo-Nazis.
Harvey S. Cohen
>Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of girls who have been
>killed and raped by the Kennedy clan.
Alan doesn't feel I should be worried if my neighbors own military weapons,
spend a lot of time and effort practicing killing, and have rallies with
copious supplies of hate literature and speakers. He feels it would be more
reasonable to wait until they commit some atrocities.
Thank you very much for your sage advice, Alan.
--
Harvey....@att.com
Kenneth Ostrander
On 17 Mar 1996, Awesome1 wrote:
> In article <4iem9f$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) says:
> >
> >In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
> >David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a local)
> >>the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails to
> >>mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
> >>militias,
> >
> >Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
> >
> >I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
> >running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
> >nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
> >--
> >m...@radix.net "Why she had to go
> > I don't know
> > She wouldn't say." -- Lenin/McCarthy
>
> Oh I see, now I get it, if you use the word Jew in a sentence you're
> an anti-semite. Thaks for clearing that up comrade Lenin.
>
>
> E. Vigilance
Thanks for that lame ass comeback Mr (hee hee) Vigilance
Ted Frank
Douglas Meier <dme...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4ih671$q...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>>Perhaps that organization might even release a report on the subject. When
>>someone attacks that report, making the demonstrably false claim that there
>>was not a trace of anti-Semitism in the aforementioned organization, as Mr.
>>Golden did, their credibility is suspect.
>>
>basically declares that all militias are neo-Nazi groups.
Since no organization has done that, you continue to ignore the issue.
The fact remains that most militias are demonstrably affiliated with or
run by neo-Nazi groups, and that it is a blatant lie to claim that none
are.
--
Ted Frank
Alan Horowitz <al...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
>Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of girls who have been
>killed and raped by the Kennedy clan.
So the next time William Kennedy Smith acts up, that will excuse another
murder?
Pathetic rationalization of militia evil.
Ted Frank
>If you want a better reference point for what is going
>on with the Klinton government, you might want to research the history of 1933
>Germany.
Ah, you mean the part where a democratically elected government was
threatened with violent revolution by roving bands of violent
paramilitaries united in their irrational belief in a worldwide
Jewish banking conspiracy?
You are right; the parallels between today^s militias and the S.A. are
eerie, though fortunately we^re more in the Beer Hall Putsch stage
rather than 1933 right now. Still, it pays to be vigilant, and,
fortunately, there are organizations like the ADL that shine light
on these bigots whenever they scurry out from underneath rocks to
threaten pluralistic society.
Ted Frank
>Ted Frank wrote:
>> Only among the anti-Semitic who are afraid of the light of truth.
>
>Do a poll among libertarians and see what you find, if they
>aren't afraid to speak for fear of being branded anti-semitic.
I doubt it. The leading libertarian thinkers -- Milton and David
Friedman, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein -- are Jewish, and I have not
heard anyone call them anti-Semitic, much less the ADL. I would be
surprised if the word ^libertarian^ has ever appeared in an ADL report.
What makes you think libertarianism has anything to do with anti-Semitism?
>If there are problem militias, confront THEM with balance and
>facts.
And that is precisely what the ADL has done.
Mark T Pitcavage
>
>The fact remains that most militias are demonstrably affiliated with or
>run by neo-Nazi groups, and that it is a blatant lie to claim that none
>are.
If is certainly not a demonstrable fact that most militias are affiliated with
or run by neo-Nazi groups. Statements like these have the effect of minimizing
the very real danger that neo-militia groups pose.
Semitic Avenger
listen, little boy, I could have quoted that article ad nauseum, in
which Gritz denies over and over that he is aligned w/the racist right
and then intersperses quotes from Pastor Richard Butler, head of the
Aryan NAtions in Hayden Lake, ID, about his affiliations with Gritz.
I gave the most memorable quote.
Now go play in traffic, idiot-boy.
Andrew Mathis
fire...@gate.net (Awesome1) wrote:
> E. Vigilance
-------------------------------------
Alan Horowitz
>Alan doesn't feel I should be worried if my neighbors own military weapons,
>spend a lot of time and effort practicing killing, and have rallies with
>copious supplies of hate literature and speakers. He feels it would be more
>reasonable to wait until they commit some atrocities.
>Thank you very much for your sage advice, Alan.
Well, Harvey - you're in New Jersey, correct? New Jersey banned
semi-automatic rifles a very long time ago. What, gun control isn't
effective in solving problems?!? I am shocked.
If your neighbors own military weapons, file a affidavitt with the foreman
of the Grand Jury. At your local court house, Harvey. That's the only
thing needed to indict them - one truthful complaint. Oh, wait.... you
don't want to sign anything under oath, and risk the penalty of perjury?
Alan Horowitz
>Alan doesn't feel I should be worried if my neighbors own military weapons,
>spend a lot of time and effort practicing killing, and have rallies with
>copious supplies of hate literature and speakers. He feels it would be more
>reasonable to wait until they commit some atrocities.
>Thank you very much for your sage advice, Alan.
That's correct, Harvey. That's how the American system works.
Maybe you were absent on the day we covered that in high school civics?
I guess your position is that we should change it and have some Thought
Police that could throw people in jail as soon as they say things that
make Harvey hyper-ventilate.
Or how about a Thought BATF that could incinerate a building full of
children when the parents have such thoughts. You could get appointed the
agency director, Harvey!
Awesome1
The "real" danger? And what pray tell is that? I suppose they will
gas and burn women and children...oops..that was the government. Or
maybe shoot some child in the back....ooops... that was the government.
Maybe murder a defenseless women while she holds her infant....oooops.
that was the government. Maybe blow up a federal building......oooops...
E. Vigilance
Mark T Pitcavage
>
>Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
>that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
>member of a militia!
Wrongo reindeer. The law tells you that you are a member of the militia.
There is no such thing as "a militia." Groups that go around calling
themselves "militias" are not; they are paramilitary vigilante groups with no
authority or legitimacy. You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a
biscuit, but it remains a kitten.
For more information on the utter lack of legitimacy of the neo-militia
movement, see:
Ted Frank
>Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
>that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
>member of a militia!
Ah, so because the word ^militia^ is used in Title 10, this automatically
rationalizes every action of the neo-Nazi paramilitary groups that call
themselves ^militias^?
Please. It just indicates that the paramilitaries are using Orwellian
language, much as the same as their adoption of the term ^patriot^ for
their anti-American activities.
viewer
>Ted Frank wrote:
>
>> I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
>> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
>> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
>Ted,
>
>I have been a close observer of the militia movement in central Texas
>for some time. I know quite a few of the people personally and am
>unaware of any racism in general, or anti-semitism in particular among
>the vast majority of people involved.
>
>I personally have been to public militia meetings here in central
>Texas where said meetings were started with a statement to the
>effect that racists were welcome to leave because they were not
>wanted. I do not doubt that there are racists and anti-semities
>who identify with the militia movement, but by belief (based on
>first hand personal observation) is that the militia movement and
>the vast majority of people involved in it disavow racism. I do
>know for a fact that some militia units in the United States have
>black and Jewish members.
>
>Of course the media _concentrates_ on the most disreputable and
>bizarre individuals it can find. That's the "news biz". But it
>ain't the truth.
The Frankster doesn't care; he's on a mission, methinks.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lawrence Kennon
Lawrence Kennon
> Ah, you mean the part where a democratically elected government was
> threatened with violent revolution by roving bands of violent
> paramilitaries united in their irrational belief in a worldwide
> Jewish banking conspiracy?
Again, as I have said before, anti-semitism is _not_ a real feature
of the militia movement. It is _not_ driven by fear or hatred of
Jews,or any other minority. It is driven by fear of the government
itself. That is a _significant_ difference. There is also one other
significant difference. The armed gangs in pre-Nazi Germany were for
the most part were simply looking for a leader, someone to tell them
what to do. The militia movement is best characterized by it's main
political theme which is a _return_ to Constitutional government and
the inalienable rights _guaranteed_ in the Bill of Rights.
These are quite significant differnces and the reason which such
comparisons are invalid -- except of course by the intellectually
challenged news media.
Regards,
Lawrence Kennon
Frank Silbermann
Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>
> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
those jerks be armed.
But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
on the New Testament.
Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
William R. Discipio Jr
: In article <4ilh4e$5...@news.wco.com>, John <cat...@gilroy.com> wrote:
: >Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
: >that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
: >member of a militia!
: Ah, so because the word ^militia^ is used in Title 10, this automatically
: rationalizes every action of the neo-Nazi paramilitary groups that call
: themselves ^militias^?
: Please. It just indicates that the paramilitaries are using Orwellian
: language, much as the same as their adoption of the term ^patriot^ for
: their anti-American activities.
Ted Frank is the pot calling the kettle black.
: --
: m...@radix.net "Why she had to go
: I don't know
: She wouldn't say." -- Lenin/McCarthy
--
crl23% finger volt...@chelsea.ios.com
Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX
Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
No Mail.
Martin Fox
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4ilh4e$5...@news.wco.com>, John <cat...@gilroy.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
>: >that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
>: >member of a militia!
>
>: themselves "militias" are not; they are paramilitary vigilante groups with no
>: authority or legitimacy. You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a
>: biscuit, but it remains a kitten.
>
>in one point. You don't "join" a militia, you "are" the militia!
>
>However, that is where credibility ends. The point is that the citizen
>militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
>standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the country
>to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms and
>related activities.
Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia as
well as provisions for their call to federal service. Otherwise, they are
under control of the states. Are any of the so-called citizens militias
under Congressional regulation or state control?
Where do the so-called citizen's militias fit this?
Here in Michigan we have militia leaders claiming that they can call public
meetings to void laws passed by legislative bodies. On what authority? We
have militia members claiming the right to drive without a drivers license.
Where did they get that right?
By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias have
shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our sodiety.
> It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
>arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
Under the regulation mentioned above.
>
>Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
>regular basis to sharpen their skills,
Has their method of drill been approved under the regulation mentioned above?
> one could hardly say that it has
>"no authority or legitimacy."
One can and I will.
> That is clearly a lie.
The truth is not a lie.
> And to imply that
>such skill-building is somehow a "paramilitary vigilante group" is
>propaganda of the highest order. While a couple of extreme citizens who
>have engaged in these activites have commited crimes,
More than a couple.
> it hardly makes any
>persons coming together to practice a "vigilante" taking laws into their
>own hands. Please show us evidence that this assertion is as widespread as
>you claim.
I have demonstrated that some of the Michigan leadership have done so. They have
disrupted meetings of several township boards and have claimed the authority
(nonexistent) to call public meetings to nullify acts of legislative bodies.
> I see none.
Just above.
>
>It's pretty clear that if the militia is ever called up,
Is the so-called citizens militia willing to be called to federal service?
All the evidence I've seen is to the contrary.
Snip.
Martin Fox
Lawrence Kennon
> The fact remains that most militias are demonstrably affiliated with or
> run by neo-Nazi groups, and that it is a blatant lie to claim that none
> are.
Ted,
This is not true. Certainly the media plays up the more disreputable
people and the true wackos, but the vast majority of the "rank and
file" people involved in the militia movement are no more racist
or anti-semitic than the the general run of the population. Like I said
in a previous message, to you I think, I _know_ a lot of these people
personally and the common belief (created by media hysteria and
dis-information) that they are racists is unfounded. Of course you
can always find an individual who is racist, but that is true of
the population in general too.
Regards,
Lawrence Kennon
Ted Frank
Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless either
>of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
>then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
>be ZERO.
Alan Berg might have disagreed.
As might an Arkansas policeman murdered because a neo-Nazi paramilitary
thought he was Jewish.
Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
couple of militia-ites using the anti-Semitic white-supremacist militia
fantasy ^The Turner Diaries^ as a blueprint.
Harvey S. Cohen
Cohen) writes:
>>Alan doesn't feel I should be worried if my neighbors own military weapons,
>>spend a lot of time and effort practicing killing, and have rallies with
>>copious supplies of hate literature and speakers. He feels it would be more
>>reasonable to wait until they commit some atrocities.
>>Thank you very much for your sage advice, Alan.
al...@widomaker.com (Alan Horowitz) wrote:
> That's correct, Harvey. That's how the American system works.
>Maybe you were absent on the day we covered that in high school civics?
>I guess your position is that we should change it and have some Thought
>Police that could throw people in jail as soon as they say things that
>make Harvey hyper-ventilate.
>[sd]
What a pitiful straw man! *I* didn't say anything about "Thought
Police that could throw people in jail as soon as they say things that
make Harvey hyper-ventilate." *Alan* had to put those words in my mouth in
order to change the subject.
Here's what *I* think: When people organize, hold hate rallies, and form
heavily-armed quasi-military organizations, their neighbors have legitimate
cause for concern. Some people's reasoning abilities in this arena are
seriously handicapped by their will to believe, but I assume even Alan would
object to such groups owning nuclear or biological weapons. I hope he would
object to such groups owning heavy artillery and armor. Maybe we just have a
small difference in worry threshhold; mine starts around automatic weapons and
small explosives.
And what does all this have to do with "thought police?" I don't have the
slightest idea; I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools in the
hands of people who say they want certain racial, ethnic, or religious groups
dead.
Alan Horowitz
>If we operate under the quite valid assumption that any society must be
>organized in accordance with the principles of the majority with much
>respect given to the rights of minority groups to live as they please,
Many countries _are_ organized that way, David. Perhaps you'd like to
move to one? Hey Dave, think about how affluent Brunei is! Free
medical care and education through graduate school for all citizens, etc,
etc, etc.
However, the USA isn't organized along that particular principle. We have
this Constitution that pretty much prevents that from ever happening
here, Dave.
Next question?
Ben Jacoby
: In article <4ilh4e$5...@news.wco.com>, John <cat...@gilroy.com> wrote:
: >
: >Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
: >that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
: >member of a militia!
: Wrongo reindeer. The law tells you that you are a member of the militia.
: There is no such thing as "a militia." Groups that go around calling
: themselves "militias" are not; they are paramilitary vigilante groups with no
: authority or legitimacy. You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a
: biscuit, but it remains a kitten.
Gads, as much as I hate to agree with Pitcavage spew, he is correct here
in one point. You don't "join" a militia, you "are" the militia!
However, that is where credibility ends. The point is that the citizen
militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the country
to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms and
related activities. It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
regular basis to sharpen their skills, one could hardly say that it has
"no authority or legitimacy." That is clearly a lie. And to imply that
such skill-building is somehow a "paramilitary vigilante group" is
propaganda of the highest order. While a couple of extreme citizens who
have engaged in these activites have commited crimes, it hardly makes any
persons coming together to practice a "vigilante" taking laws into their
own hands. Please show us evidence that this assertion is as widespread as
you claim. I see none.
It's pretty clear that if the militia is ever called up, the only job
Pitcavage will be skilled enough to handle will be shoveling out the
latrine! You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a "viligante"
Nazi, but it's still a kitten!
--
Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
bja...@infinet.com | a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
David Snyder
> [...]
> The "real" danger? And what pray tell is that? I suppose they will
> gas and burn women and children...oops..that was the government. Or
> maybe shoot some child in the back....ooops... that was the government.
> Maybe murder a defenseless women while she holds her infant....oooops.
> that was the government. Maybe blow up a federal building......oooops...
>
>
>
> E. Vigilance
You forget that these things occured, if I am catching your allusion
correctly, after a long period of distrust of government. People
distrusted the government so much that they were willing to let some
"militia" types, who claimed to want to reduce the government to some
populist state that would invigorate the economy and get rid of the
commies, run the government. It was then that everything went from bad to
worse.
If we operate under the quite valid assumption that any society must be
organized in accordance with the principles of the majority with much
respect given to the rights of minority groups to live as they please,
i.e. we believe that a republic is the best form of governance (and
remember, anarchy becomes a form of governance as some people will try to
become powerful over others and a de facto government will ensue... in
modern society it would probably be based on the whims of big business
leaders.), then we must serve to maintain that republic. Now in a
republic it is necessary for people to participate in the system,
otherwise the system becomes unrepresentative and hence does not serve its
purpose. But militia groups, by urging people to "drop out" of meaningful
participation in the democratic processes of a republic, undermine the
republic which serves to perpetuate the aims of the militia in claiming to
speak for dissafected "majorities." This process of positive feedback may
continue until the government becomes particularly unrepresentative and
brutal as in the quoted example, but in such a situation is it fair to say
that the people did not get what they asked for? After all, people
assumed the government was a "dictatorship," so it became one!
Cheers,
David Snyder
Lawrence Kennon
> I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s former
> running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
> nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
Ted,
I have been a close observer of the militia movement in central Texas
for some time. I know quite a few of the people personally and am
unaware of any racism in general, or anti-semitism in particular among
the vast majority of people involved.
I personally have been to public militia meetings here in central
Texas where said meetings were started with a statement to the
effect that racists were welcome to leave because they were not
wanted. I do not doubt that there are racists and anti-semities
who identify with the militia movement, but by belief (based on
first hand personal observation) is that the militia movement and
the vast majority of people involved in it disavow racism. I do
know for a fact that some militia units in the United States have
black and Jewish members.
Of course the media _concentrates_ on the most disreputable and
bizarre individuals it can find. That's the "news biz". But it
ain't the truth.
Regards,
Lawrence Kennon
David Snyder
Jacoby) wrote:
> [...]
> However, that is where credibility ends. The point is that the citizen
> militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
> standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the country
> to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms and
> related activities. It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
> arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
>
> [...]
> --
> Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
> bja...@infinet.com | a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
Um... I love to split hairs over definitions, but I still do not see a
difference between "well regulated" and "organized." The whole point of
citizen militias was to have a more popular army that would not turn
against a democracy as does happen in many parts of the world. However,
this is most important in a pre-industrial state where it is possible to
even organize a legitamate citizen militia. The whole point of being
"well-regulated" means that, like in is it Switzerland, you basically
cannot use your gun without special permission, etc. I do not think this
is what you want.
In general, given the fact that there are weapans much more powerful than
any sort of gun that can practically be used by a citizen militia, I think
the whole idea is not rather useful now adays. We are no longer an
agrarian nation of yeoman farmers, and indeed this was always a fictional
construction anyway. I think it is about time we realize that the age
where militias are practical is over.
David Snyder
David Snyder
<kennon...@tandem.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Of course the media _concentrates_ on the most disreputable and
> bizarre individuals it can find. That's the "news biz". But it
> ain't the truth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lawrence Kennon
Of course that is the news business... that is how they can sell "news."
That is why I like the idea of government news. Of course we should have
private news as it is safe in case the government turns "bad," but the
only way news can be in any way legitamate (ignoring the illegitamacy in
the very concept of "news") is to have no profit motive. Unfortunately,
this is impossible without some government involvement. All I can say is,
log live public radio!
Anyway, your point is well taken but we must concentrate on the effects of
the militia movement in general. Even if the militias are not racist
per-se, their beliefs can lead to a system that is racist. For example,
in their anti-government activities, they would make systems such as NPR
impossible therefore relagating news to a purely profit based
institution. This means that news would have to have mass appeal and if
this is best done by racist broadcasts, it will be done.
So regardless of the character of the militias, one must ask what is their
effect. One must take the views to the extreme in order to criticize
them. And if too much danger is shown, it will cast the movement in a bad
light as humans have a tendancy to get carried away. And one must
therefore begin to question who joins the militias... the questioning goes
on. I would be most afraid when it stops.
David Snyder
Martin Fox
><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>>
>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
>
>so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
>those jerks be armed.
Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>
>But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
>
>And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>on the New Testament.
I fail to see tha relationship. Can we not seek, along with gentile allies,
to reduce the prevalence of danger in our society?
>
>Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
>Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
>
Martin Fox
Mark T Pitcavage
Ben Jacoby <bja...@infinet.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4ilh4e$5...@news.wco.com>, John <cat...@gilroy.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
>: >that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
>: >member of a militia!
>
>: Wrongo reindeer. The law tells you that you are a member of the militia.
>: There is no such thing as "a militia." Groups that go around calling
>: themselves "militias" are not; they are paramilitary vigilante groups with n
o
>: authority or legitimacy. You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a
>: biscuit, but it remains a kitten.
>
>Gads, as much as I hate to agree with Pitcavage spew, he is correct here
>in one point. You don't "join" a militia, you "are" the militia!
>
>militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
>standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the country
>to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms and
>related activities. It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
>arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
On the contrary, it is the "duty" of militia members to -follow regulations-.
And federal and state regulations alike state that you either join the National
Guard, or that you be "unorganized." And "unorganized" militia members do
-not- organize or train or anything like that. In fact, the "unorganized"
militia was created for the express purpose of allowing the majority of
Americans to escape militia duty.
>
>Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
>regular basis to sharpen their skills, one could hardly say that it has
>"no authority or legitimacy." That is clearly a lie. And to imply that
>such skill-building is somehow a "paramilitary vigilante group" is
>propaganda of the highest order.
On the contrary, it is the simple truth. The fact that you are nominally in a
group of people described as the "unorganized militia" does not give you the
right to do one darn thing. If you want to "come together on a regular basis"
you do it on your own initiative and your own individual whim. And if a state
has laws against paramilitary forces, you have absolutely no protection against
them by virtue of being in the "unorganized" militia. This is not propaganda;
it is simply the truth, and ignoring it might get you in trouble some day.
> While a couple of extreme citizens who
>have engaged in these activites have commited crimes, it hardly makes any
>persons coming together to practice a "vigilante" taking laws into their
>own hands. Please show us evidence that this assertion is as widespread as
>you claim. I see none.
Have you heard of the Montana Freemen? Have you heard of Florida's
Constitutional Common Law Militia? Have you heard of the Unorganized Militia
of the Committee of the States? Have you heard of Juris Christian Assembly?
How about Ray Lampley? Stewart Waterhouse? Joe Holland? Calvin Greenup? How
about Louis DeBroux?
>It's pretty clear that if the militia is ever called up, the only job
>Pitcavage will be skilled enough to handle will be shoveling out the
>latrine! You can put a kitten in the oven and call it a "viligante"
>Nazi, but it's still a kitten!
The "unorganized militia" will never be called up, because we have the National
Guard.
steve hix
> In article <4imp0k$f...@news1.infinet.com>, (Ben Jacoby) wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
> > standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the country
> > to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms and
> > related activities. It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
> > arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
>
> difference between "well regulated" and "organized."
"Well-regulated" means able to function to a minimum published standard.
"Organized" refers to that part of the militia called up for service,
specifically National Guard and Naval Militia members. (Is there still
a Naval Militia? I know that 10 USC 311, 312 was last updated at least
in the 1970's, but...)
> The whole point of
> citizen militias was to have a more popular army that would not turn
> against a democracy as does happen in many parts of the world. However,
> this is most important in a pre-industrial state where it is possible to
> even organize a legitamate citizen militia.
Why is a post-industrial incapable of organizing a "legitamate citizen
militia"?
> The whole point of being "well-regulated" means that, like in is it
> Switzerland, you basically cannot use your gun without special permission,
> etc. I do not think this is what you want.
Nonsense. (Whether or not it's something that one might or might not
want is beside the point.)
The Swiss do *not* need "special permission" to use their issue weapon.
They have a sealed container "war-ready reserve" of ammunition which
must not be mucked with, but hey are at the same time *encouraged* to
regularly practice with their issue weapon at local ranges, and
ammunition for this purpose is freely available (if not *exactly*
free) at said ranges.
Privately-owned firearms are another issue altogether.
> In general, given the fact that there are weapans much more powerful than
> any sort of gun that can practically be used by a citizen militia, I think
> the whole idea is not rather useful now adays.
Ask the U.S. Army about dealing with an armed urban insurrection.
They don't look forward to dealing with one. They *don't* think that it
would be easy to put down, either.
The nifty toys you invoke are often worse than useless whent he enemy
is mixed in with your own citizens, for starters.
> We are no longer an agrarian nation of yeoman farmers, and indeed this
> was always a fictional construction anyway. I think it is about time we
> realize that the age where militias are practical is over.
Perhaps the militias that you envision are somewhat different to what
may actually be the case now and in the future.
John
What?!
Man, I've run across ignorant people before, but never one who seemed set
to remain that way.
Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
member of a militia!
Whether you like it or not, YOU already ARE a member of a militia. All
that needs to happen is for you to be called up for duty.
I'll bet that yellow streak on your back beats you to the border.
John
Charles Scripter
On 18 Mar 1996 01:27:49 -0500, Ted Frank (m...@Radix.Net) wrote:
> The fact remains that most militias are demonstrably affiliated with or
> run by neo-Nazi groups, and that it is a blatant lie to claim that none
> are.
An interesting "factoid" Ted. Tell me, exactly what percentage of
these militias are affiliated with or run by neo-Nazi groups? Surely
you can present this data, since you claim it is demonstrable. Also,
please identify the source(s) for any data you present.
--
Charles Scripter * cesc...@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
Alan Horowitz
>agrarian nation of yeoman farmers, and indeed this was always a fictional
>construction anyway.
Dave, why don't you write your congressman and ask him to send you
the Census reports up until WWI. The average age of marriage for
females was 15.
Dave, do you have any relatives who were of legal age before WWII? Ask
them how often they were able to buy out-of-season produce (ie, not
grown inside a one-day round trip truck drive of the farm).
A mind. It's a terrible thing to waste.
Charles Scripter
> Alan Horowitz <al...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> >Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of girls who have been
> >killed and raped by the Kennedy clan.
> So the next time William Kennedy Smith acts up, that will excuse another
> murder?
Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless either
of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
be ZERO.
> Pathetic rationalization of militia evil.
Funny thing, Ted. I thought that Murder was unlawful, regardless
of who committed the crime.
Charles Scripter
> In article <4inkqg$6...@fishlab5.fsh.mtu.edu>,
> Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> > Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless either
> >of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
> >then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
> >be ZERO.
> Alan Berg might have disagreed.
Afraid I don't know Alan Berg. And it seems that the logic
presented above was lost in your emotional examples (since the
original assertion was essentially that there were zero murders
committed by a *militia*).
But tell me, which militia murdered this man? (Which Citizen Army,
not individual, committed this crime. You have been referring to
_groups_ in all previous definitions, and I'm not going to let you
change definitions now).
> As might an Arkansas policeman murdered because a neo-Nazi paramilitary
> thought he was Jewish.
A single neo-Nazi paramilitary goon is now a "militia"? A "one man
army"?... He sounds more like a common criminal to me.
Does this mean if I find one lunatic lawyer who kills people of
religion "X", that all lawyers should be taken out and shot? ;)
Have you passed your bar exam yet?... ;>
I have no love of neo-Nazi scum, but unless and until these
individuals commit real crimes, I'm afraid that you'll simply have
to tolerate them... Well, more or _less_... I DO think it would be
perfectly acceptable for a thousand people to line the streets the
next time a group wants to march and MOON THEM. :)
And one presumes that as a lawyer, that you know what to do with
these individuals if they DO commit crimes...
> Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
> couple of militia-ites using the anti-Semitic white-supremacist militia
> fantasy ^The Turner Diaries^ as a blueprint.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I didn't recall hearing that the trial had
been held and the Jury passed judgement yet (though maybe I missed it,
since I have been rather busy lately). When did the trial end? What
was the verdict?
But it's true, McVeigh once belonged to the dreaded militia known
as the US ARMY. Perhaps we should disarm and disband this hate group...
BTW, I've never before heard that claim that McVeigh's alleged
reasons were anti-Semitic. The media did repeatedly mention the BATF
as a likely target. Or is your complaint only related to the alleged
source of their "blueprint".
Lastly, it appears that your documentation that *militias* have
committed these crimes, is somewhat scarce. In another posting you
said it was demonstrable, so I'm rather interested in learning what
fraction of the militias in the several States are controlled by
neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic groups (or whatever other classifications
you'd like to apply to them). Based on this post, it appears that
you have no documentation for the claimed danger from non-government
controlled militias.
--
Charles Scripter * cesc...@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there
is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ..."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
:
: Militias have killed fewer Jews than the number of girls who have been
: killed and raped by the Kennedy clan.
<blinking light here for the sarcasm impaired>
Oh, well that certainly clears things up! We couldn't have been more
wrong, you have the collective apologies of all 1st Amendment activist
throughout America.
<blinking light off>
<alt.flame mode on>
Fuckhead
<alt.flame mode off>
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! the alt.flame NEKKID JPEG/ME TOO List!
Czar of alt.gif-agreement
Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
Kibo for President in '96
Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
*FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: In <4iem9f$3...@saltmine.radix.net> m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) writes:
: >
: >In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>,
: >David Golden <dgo...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >>Focusing on the reporting for California (where I happen to be a
: local)
: >>the ADL correctly reports that there are about 35 militia but fails
: to
: >>mention that no trace of anti-semitism was found among the California
: >>militias,
: >
: >Perhaps they fail to mention it because it is not true.
: >
: >I would hardly call organizational ties to Bo Gritz, David Duke^s
: former
: >running mate who accuses a Jewish banking conspiracy of running the
: >nation, as ^no trace of anti-semitism^.
: Moe, since when is tellinbg the truth about the zionists being anti
: semetic, which is just an ADL buzzword. Go back to running your bar.
Perhaps you should return to your medication and nice padded room. You
see John, truth requires something called proof, which as yet I haven't
seen from any of you yahoos. But do rave on, please, you are doing so
much to counter millitia critcs charges of anti-semetism/racism.
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid Racist JPEG/ME TOO List (EW!)
William R. Discipio Jr
<snip>
: President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
: Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid US CODE section 10
: JPEG/ME TOO List!
: Czar of alt.gif-agreement
: Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
: Kibo for President in '96
: Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
: *FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suppose that because you consider yourself liberal, it is alright for
you to be a homophobe.
: :
: :
: : John
: :
: :
: :
Awesome1
>
>f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote:
>><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>>>
>>> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
>>> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
>>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
>>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
>>
>>Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
>>so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
>>those jerks be armed.
>
>Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
>bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
>National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
Our laws? What country do you come from?
>
>>
>>But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>>freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>>the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
>
>Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
Predicting at this point....
>
>>
>>And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>>we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>>as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>>on the New Testament.
>
>I fail to see tha relationship. Can we not seek, along with gentile allies,
>to reduce the prevalence of danger in our society?
Stay inside, watch TV....you'll be safe there.
E. Vigilance
Mark T Pitcavage
Frank Silbermann <f...@cs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>
><4in5ec$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
>Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>> Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
>> constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia as
>> well as provisions for their call to federal service. Otherwise, they are
>> under control of the states. Are any of the so-called citizens militias
>> under Congressional regulation or state control?
>
>of citizens militias.
>
>So far the states have chosen a Lassaiz Fare (sp?) attitude.
>That's their perogative.
On the contrary, the states have passed laws that say that the militia, aside
from the National Guard, shall be -unorganized-. It shall not be armed,
equipped, trained, officered or organized. That does NOT give individuals the
right to form their own paramilitary groups and call themselves militias.
>It turns out that the petty bourgoise craftsmen tend to make
>unenthusiastic soldiers, so the formation of a standing army
>and select militia was inevitable. But the founders felt that
>this subversive force could be balanced by a citizenry that was
>well-armed anyway, or if not well armed, one in which individuals
>had the right to acquire arms should they ever feel the need.
>
>That's why they said that a well-regulated militia, properly consisting
>of the entire population (with the possible exception of a few public
>officials) was necessary to the security of a free state.
My, do you conflate things.
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: Hey idiot, that government building was blown up by one of you militia
: fruit-cakes.
Astounding! A truth so simple even an AOL user can understand it! Bravo,
gentlemen this is a leap forward!
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon NEKKID AOL JPEGS/ME TOO List!
Oh, wait a second, that's already out...Never Mind.
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: In article <4in5ra$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> says:
: >
: >f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote:
: >><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
: >>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
: >>>
: >>> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
: >>> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
: >>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
: >>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
: >>
: >>Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
: >>so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
: >>those jerks be armed.
: >
: >Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
: >bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
: >National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
:
: Our laws? What country do you come from?
Gads, I have to agree with Mr. E. Vig. and I thought this was going to be
a good morning. <Sigh> Now I'll probably have to go toss my cookies. The
2nd Amendment does give *individual* citizens the right to bear arms.
This doesn't mean every private citizen is entitled to his own nuclear
stockpile. Nor for that matter do I think it means Fully automatic
weapons which have no, *ZERO*, use other than to murder other humans. The
idea that an AK-47 is a hunting weapon (as the NRA once contended I
believe) is patently ridiculous. But then if you Militia twits had
half an ounce of brains you might realise that full auto weapons are
useless for waging a guerilla campaign, which is what I suspect you'll
probably try to do "when the time comes" as one milita moron put it. The
idea that you could engage the army of the current reigning super power
in a set piece battle is very laughable (but then, a guerilla campaign
against same said army is almost as comedic, can you say "Militia Suicide
Festival?" I thought you could).
:
: >
: >>
: >>But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
: >>freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
: >>the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
: >
: >Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
:
: Predicting at this point....
Only if you lot keep going on rampages such as OKC, and your various
little "innocent" Law man hunting games in the Dakotas.
You know, it's generally said that the only people who want war are those
who've never been in one. Worth thinking about.
:
: >
: >>
: >>And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
: >>we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
: >>as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
: >>on the New Testament.
: >
: >I fail to see tha relationship. Can we not seek, along with gentile allies,
: >to reduce the prevalence of danger in our society?
:
: Stay inside, watch TV....you'll be safe there.
Well, it seems to be how you got your education, and I wouldn't want to
enflict that on anyone.
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! Second American Civil War NEKKID
JPEGS/ME TOO List!
Czar of alt.gif-agreement
Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
Kibo for President in '96
Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
*FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
:
:
: E. Vigilance
Martin Fox
>In article <4in5ra$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> says:
>>
>>f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote:
>>><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>>>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>>>>
>>>> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
>>>> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
>>>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
>>>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
>>>
>>>Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
>>>so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
>>>those jerks be armed.
>>
>>Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
>>bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
>>National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>
> Our laws? What country do you come from?
>
The US. Congres, charged under the constitution with regulating the militia
has done so by declaring that the National Guard is the militia.
>>
>>>
>>>But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>>>freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>>>the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
>>
>>Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
>
> Predicting at this point....
Who will start if? You? Is that why you post anonymously?
>
>>
>>>
>>>And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>>>we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>>>as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>>>on the New Testament.
>>
>>I fail to see tha relationship. Can we not seek, along with gentile allies,
>>to reduce the prevalence of danger in our society?
>
> Stay inside, watch TV....you'll be safe there.
What does the above have to do with my previous?
I feel safe at home. I feel safe in my work place. I feel safe in my
unarmed (I believe) neighborhood. I feel safe traveling in western Europe,
Japan, china, and India where I only have to worry, in some places, about my
wallet and not about my life. I even feel safer in Israel with terrorism than
in some parts on the heavily armed US.
>
>
> E. Vigilance
Does E. Vigilance mean form vigilante groups?
Martin Fox
FreshAgain
Martin Fox
Snip.
>In article <4in5ra$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
>Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
>> Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms
>> (or arm bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..."
>> which means the National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>
>Please cite the judicial decisions which explicitly say this.
>I bet you won't find a single judicial opinion like that
>over twenty years old, and from a lower court at best
>(and balanced by an overwhelming number of judicial dicta
>saying the exact opposite).
I don't need to read judicial decisions. I can read the Constitution. I
repeat an earlier suggestion that you do so.
However, how many successful challenges to limitations on the right to bear
arms have you seen? Has New York's Sullivan Law been overruled? Because of
it, the gun crimes committed in New York are almost all with guns purchased
in places such as Virginia. The assault weapons laws and trhe Brady Act are
still in place.
I hope that you will respond to my question in another posting listing various
weapons and asking which, in your view, are covered by the right to bear arms.
>
>
>>> But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>>> freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>>> the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
>>
>> Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
>
>No. A deterrent _prevents_ violence.
>
Just as a gun in the hands of my neighbor might settle an argument we have?
>
>>> And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>>> we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>>> as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>>> on the New Testament.
>>
>> I fail to see the relationship.
>
>Do you deny that anti-Jewish attitudes based in the New Testament
>have led to the murder of more Jews in the past 200 years than
>the widespread private ownership of guns?
>
I will restrict myself to the US. The answer is I don't know. Nazi Germany
is another case.
Are you only concerned with murders of Jews? "If I am only for myself, then
what am I?"
>
>> Can we not seek, along with gentile allies, to reduce
>> the prevalence of danger in our society?
>
>I was speaking of the reaction by gentile _opponents_ of gun control.
What are you talking about? I don't follow.
>
>And I don't see how the prevalence of danger in our society
>will be reduced if you implant into the hearts of millions of Americans
>a fierce hatred of the government.
I implant hatred of the government into the hearts of Americans? It seems
to me that it is the so-called citizens militias that do so.
>
>You will certainly accomplish this if you manage to pass laws
>infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms.
>
>------------------------------------------
>Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
>Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
The crazies already hate the government and don't need additional excuses.
If we disarm them, we will remove a clear and present danger.
Martin Fox
A Traveler of the Orion Spiral Arm
Pitcavage)) wrote:
:On the contrary, the states have passed laws that say that the militia, aside
:from the National Guard, shall be -unorganized-.
Care to give us a citation that we can go look up? Any state will do.
:It shall not be armed, equipped, trained, officered or organized.
Then what the hell IS it? A bunch of unarmed, untrained guys
wandering around without any contact with each other? Some militia.
:That does NOT give individuals the
:right to form their own paramilitary groups and call themselves militias.
Unfortunately, I just trimmed out the old stuff, so I don't know what
"that" you're referring to, but here in America we have long taken the
position that anything is permitted unless it is expressly forbidden.
People only lost the "right" to form paramilitary groups when the
states passed laws forbidding the drilling of a body of armed men, or
maintaining such a body. (Much as I hate to agree with Pitcavage, he
is correct on this point.)
JD
--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We seek not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
calvin johns
Frobnia) wrote:
>Awesome1 (fire...@gate.net) wrote:
>: In article <4in5ra$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> says:
>: >
>: >f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote:
>: >><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>: >>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>: >>>
>: >>> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
>: >>> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
>: >>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
>: >>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
>: >>
>: >>Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
>: >>so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
>: >>those jerks be armed.
>: >
>: >Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
>: >bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
>: >National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>:
>: Our laws? What country do you come from?
>Gads, I have to agree with Mr. E. Vig. and I thought this was going to be
>a good morning. <Sigh> Now I'll probably have to go toss my cookies. The
>2nd Amendment does give *individual* citizens the right to bear arms.
>This doesn't mean every private citizen is entitled to his own nuclear
>stockpile. Nor for that matter do I think it means Fully automatic
>weapons which have no, *ZERO*, use other than to murder other humans. The
>idea that an AK-47 is a hunting weapon (as the NRA once contended I
>believe) is patently ridiculous. But then if you Militia twits had
>half an ounce of brains you might realise that full auto weapons are
>useless for waging a guerilla campaign, which is what I suspect you'll
>probably try to do "when the time comes" as one milita moron put it. The
>idea that you could engage the army of the current reigning super power
>in a set piece battle is very laughable (but then, a guerilla campaign
>against same said army is almost as comedic
Most of our Service men support the Militia Men's Views. What makes
you think insurection on the Armed Forces side would not happen when
we send them in to quell their retired brothers. Does Michael New
mean anything to you. Same issue, UN Conspiracy- US gov Conspiracy.
History has seen the Armed Services join in on a quo in other
countries and if the Armed Services and the X-Army Intelligence
officers in the CIA buddies and the Militia Groups have the same
agenda, they will not be fighting each other.
This is highly speculative right now, but I would have never thought
nerve gas showers could be a reality either. SO, it is not
completely laughable.
, can you say "Militia Suicide
>Festival?" I thought you could).
Who is going to stop them, is more like the question. ATF? FBI?
Maybe. But the US Military would be splintered agianst a attack on
their own.
>:
>: >
>: >>
>: >>But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>: >>freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>: >>the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
>: >
>: >Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
>:
>: Predicting at this point....
>Only if you lot keep going on rampages such as OKC, and your various
>little "innocent" Law man hunting games in the Dakotas.
>You know, it's generally said that the only people who want war are those
>who've never been in one. Worth thinking about.
>:
>: >
>: >>
>: >>And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>: >>we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>: >>as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>: >>on the New Testament.
>: >
>: >I fail to see tha relationship. Can we not seek, along with gentile allies,
>: >to reduce the prevalence of danger in our society?
David Snyder
Silbermann) wrote:
> <4in5ec$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
> [...]
> Yes. The states have the authority to arm, train and appoint leaders
> of citizens militias.
>
> So far the states have chosen a Lassaiz Fare (sp?) attitude.
> That's their perogative.
> [...]
> Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
> Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
I may be mistaken as I sometimes tend to be but something sounds familiar.
A state regulated, citizen organization that trains in case it needs to be
called for war...
Sounds much like the "National Guard" to me.
Cheers,
David Snyder
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: >Pathetic rationalization of militia evil.: What?!
:
: Man, I've run across ignorant people before, but never one who seemed set
: to remain that way.
:
: Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you will FIND
: that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one) be a
: member of a militia!
Me thinks that you need to tune into reality FM. They weren't speaking of
unofficial groups of red neck hate mongers downing Buds in the trailer
park. They were speaking of the men & women of the Armed forces reserves
and National Guard, HTH.
:
: Whether you like it or not, YOU already ARE a member of a militia. All
: that needs to happen is for you to be called up for duty.
:
: I'll bet that yellow streak on your back beats you to the border.
Oh you mean unlike those brave racists up in Citrus county who beat up
the county beauty queen and her boyfriend just because he was black. BTW
they out numbered him on the order of 5 to 1. Oh yes, very brave and
couragous...
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid US CODE section 10
JPEG/ME TOO List!
Czar of alt.gif-agreement
Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
Kibo for President in '96
Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
*FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
:
:
: John
:
:
:
John Luebbers
>
>bja...@infinet.com (Ben Jacoby) wrote:
>>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>: In article <4ilh4e$5...@news.wco.com>, John <cat...@gilroy.com>
wrote:
>>: >
>>: >Why don't you TRY reading Section 10 of the US Code. In it you
will FIND
>>: >that it is REQUIRED by LAW that you, as a citizen (if you are one)
be a
>>: >member of a militia!
>>
>>: Wrongo reindeer. The law tells you that you are a member of the
militia.
>>: There is no such thing as "a militia." Groups that go around
calling
>>: themselves "militias" are not; they are paramilitary vigilante
groups with no
>>: authority or legitimacy. You can put a kitten in the oven and call
it a
>>: biscuit, but it remains a kitten.
>>
>>Gads, as much as I hate to agree with Pitcavage spew, he is correct
here
>>in one point. You don't "join" a militia, you "are" the militia!
>>
>>However, that is where credibility ends. The point is that the
citizen
>>militia is "unorganized". It does not have an organization like the
>>standing army. However, for militia members, it is our duty to the
country
>>to become "well regulated" ... which means skilled in the use of arms
and
>>related activities.
>
>Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
>constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia
as
>well as provisions for their call to federal service. Otherwise, they
are
>under control of the states. Are any of the so-called citizens
militias
>under Congressional regulation or state control?
>
>Where do the so-called citizen's militias fit this?
>
>Here in Michigan we have militia leaders claiming that they can call
public
>meetings to void laws passed by legislative bodies. On what
authority? We
>have militia members claiming the right to drive without a drivers
license.
>Where did they get that right?
>
>By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias
have
>shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our sodiety.
>
>> It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
>>arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
>
>Under the regulation mentioned above.
>
>>
>>Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on
a
>>regular basis to sharpen their skills,
>
>Has their method of drill been approved under the regulation mentioned
above?
>
>> one could hardly say that it has
>>"no authority or legitimacy."
>
>One can and I will.
>
>> That is clearly a lie.
>
>The truth is not a lie.
>
>> And to imply that
>>such skill-building is somehow a "paramilitary vigilante group" is
>>propaganda of the highest order. While a couple of extreme citizens
who
>>have engaged in these activites have commited crimes,
>
>More than a couple.
>
>> it hardly makes any
>>persons coming together to practice a "vigilante" taking laws into
their
>>own hands. Please show us evidence that this assertion is as
widespread as
>>you claim.
>
>I have demonstrated that some of the Michigan leadership have done so.
They have
>disrupted meetings of several township boards and have claimed the
authority
>(nonexistent) to call public meetings to nullify acts of legislative
bodies.
>
>> I see none.
>
>Just above.
>
>>
>>It's pretty clear that if the militia is ever called up,
>
>Is the so-called citizens militia willing to be called to federal
service?
>All the evidence I've seen is to the contrary.
>
>Snip.
>
>Martin Fox
>
In what way are militias a threat to our society? There is nothing in
the constitution that says militias are illegal. What are you paranoid
about Martin?
Alan Horowitz
>Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
>couple of militia-ites
The local United States Attorney hasn't moved to bring the case to trial.
Perhaps Janet Reno doesn't want any embarrasing news to hit the headlines
until after the November election. Maybe the case isn't quite so
open-and-shut as Ted believes. Maybe the government won't secure a
conviction. After all the ADL hullabaloo, Randy Weaver also proved
innocent. And the FBI sniper who shot Weaver's wife while she was holding
an infant - Lon Horiuchi - is in serious jeopardy of being indicted for
Murder One by the County Prosecutor.
Frank Silbermann
>><314edea1...@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
>>Harvey S. Cohen <h...@zippy.ho.att.com> :
>>>
>>> And what does all this have to do with "thought police?"
>>> I'm just concerned about lots and lots of killing tools
>>> in the hands of people who say they want certain racial,
>>> ethnic, or religious groups dead.
>>
>> Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
>> so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
>> those jerks be armed.
>
Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
> Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms
> (or arm bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..."
> which means the National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
Please cite the judicial decisions which explicitly say this.
I bet you won't find a single judicial opinion like that
over twenty years old, and from a lower court at best
(and balanced by an overwhelming number of judicial dicta
saying the exact opposite).
>> But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
>> freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
>> the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
>
> Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
No. A deterrent _prevents_ violence.
>> And if, in our fear of armed Kluxers, we Jews push to outlaw guns,
>> we'll deserve and get the same reaction from the gentile masses
>> as if we responded to Identity Christianity by pushing for a ban
>> on the New Testament.
>
> I fail to see the relationship.
Do you deny that anti-Jewish attitudes based in the New Testament
have led to the murder of more Jews in the past 200 years than
the widespread private ownership of guns?
> Can we not seek, along with gentile allies, to reduce
> the prevalence of danger in our society?
I was speaking of the reaction by gentile _opponents_ of gun control.
And I don't see how the prevalence of danger in our society
will be reduced if you implant into the hearts of millions of Americans
a fierce hatred of the government.
You will certainly accomplish this if you manage to pass laws
infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms.
------------------------------------------
William R. Discipio Jr
: William R. Discipio Jr <disc...@crl.com> wrote:
: >
: >: Why would you discount it? Members of the Order freely admitted using it as
: a
: >: blueprint. It appears that some of the Arizona Patriots also did so. If th
: em,
: >: why not McVeigh?
: >
: >A 'blueprint'?! C'mon. The only thing specific in that book was that a
: >federal building would be blown up. Hardly a novel idea. I suppose next
: >we'll see Baltimore being nuked. Sheesh, some conspiracy theorists...
: Don't be silly. The Order, for instance, got the idea of going around
: committing armed robberies in order to get the funds needed to finance their
: revolution from _The Turner Diaries_.
C'mon! Terrorist groups have been robbing banks for centuries to fund
their activities. You give the Nazi that wrote the book too much credit.
: So too, it appears, did the Arizona
: Patriots (although they were not successful, as was the Order). There is also
: little "conspiratorial" about this, since members of the Order admitted as
: such.
I find it hard to believe that a terrorist organization had to go to the
Turner Diaries to learn about a technique for raising money that has been
commonly used in the past.
About the only thing the Turner Diaries is good for is pointing out
exactly the kind of enslavement these Nazis have in mind for their white
supporters if they ever get power.
Mark T Pitcavage
>
>: Why would you discount it? Members of the Order freely admitted using it as
a
>: blueprint. It appears that some of the Arizona Patriots also did so. If th
em,
>: why not McVeigh?
>
>A 'blueprint'?! C'mon. The only thing specific in that book was that a
>federal building would be blown up. Hardly a novel idea. I suppose next
>we'll see Baltimore being nuked. Sheesh, some conspiracy theorists...
Don't be silly. The Order, for instance, got the idea of going around
committing armed robberies in order to get the funds needed to finance their
revolution from _The Turner Diaries_. So too, it appears, did the Arizona
David Snyder
Horowitz) wrote:
Read what I said and not what you think I may be saying.
I never would be stupid enough to deny the fact that we were until WWII a
primarily agrarian nation. In many ways we still are (look at how much
food we produce). What I was denying is the pretty picture of the
independant yeoman farmer as the normal mode of living in our nation (many
people were sharecroppers/ day laborers, etc.). This fiction is a
construction based on fact but it is a fiction in as much as the
independance of such farmers to "live off the land" and be "self-reliant"
was always exagerated in our search for a national mythology. And now
that the average age for marriage of females is no longer 15 (although you
notice now that everyone is complaining about teen-age pregnancy...) and
we are primarily urban, the whole militia idea is rather much out of date.
Sincerely,
David Snyder
William R. Discipio Jr
: In article <4inkqg$6...@fishlab5.fsh.mtu.edu>,
: Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
: > Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless either
: >of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
: >then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
: >be ZERO.
: Alan Berg might have disagreed.
: As might an Arkansas policeman murdered because a neo-Nazi paramilitary
: thought he was Jewish.
: Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
: couple of militia-ites using the anti-Semitic white-supremacist militia
: fantasy ^The Turner Diaries^ as a blueprint.
<snicker> Tell it to the FBI. A sleazy book more poorly written than a
dime store novel... a blue print. What next?
: --
: m...@radix.net "Why she had to go
: I don't know
: She wouldn't say." -- Lenin/McCarthy
William R. Discipio Jr
: Hey idiot, that government building was blown up by one of you militia
: fruit-cakes.
Coool Butthead. Hehehehehe.
Martin Fox
Snip.
>>Here in Michigan we have militia leaders claiming that they can call
>public
>>meetings to void laws passed by legislative bodies. On what
>authority? We
>>have militia members claiming the right to drive without a drivers
>license.
>>Where did they get that right?
>>
>>By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias
>have
>>shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our sodiety.
>>
More snip.
>
>>I have demonstrated that some of the Michigan leadership have done so.
> They have
>>disrupted meetings of several township boards and have claimed the
>authority
>>(nonexistent) to call public meetings to nullify acts of legislative
>bodies.
>>
And one more snip.
>>
>>Martin Fox
>>
>In what way are militias a threat to our society? There is nothing in
>the constitution that says militias are illegal. What are you paranoid
>about Martin?
I am not paranoid. Read the two paragraphs above that I kept from my
posting. We have so-called citizens militias in Michigan that are
declaring themselves to have the authority to nullify the laws adopted by
elected legislative bodies. I call this a clear and present danger to public
order.
In Michigan we have four legitimate ways to change laws that we don't like.
1. By referendum. Circulate a petition and, if you get enough signatures of
registered voters, the matter will be on the ballot. Then convince a
majority of voters.
2. Recall those members of the legislative body who voted for it. Again, a
petition and an election. If the recall is successful, elect replacements
who agree with you.
3. When the terms of those mentioned in 2 end, elect replacements who agree
with you.
4. Challenge the law in the courts on constitutional grounds.
Martin Fox
Frank Silbermann
<4in5ec$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
>>
> Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
> constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia as
> well as provisions for their call to federal service. Otherwise, they are
> under control of the states. Are any of the so-called citizens militias
> under Congressional regulation or state control?
Yes. The states have the authority to arm, train and appoint leaders
of citizens militias.
So far the states have chosen a Lassaiz Fare (sp?) attitude.
That's their perogative.
> By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias
> have shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our society.
Gee, then I guess President Clinton really blundered
when he provided the catalyst for this movement's growth.
>> It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
>> arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
>
> Under the regulation mentioned above.
They _are_ under the regulation of the states.
The states have chosen to make these regulations quite loose.
>>Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
>>regular basis to sharpen their skills,
>
> Has their method of drill been approved under the regulation
> mentioned above?
What is not forbidden is permitted. Therefore, yes.
> Is the so-called citizens militia willing to be called
> to federal service? All the evidence I've seen is to the contrary.
It's called the Selective Service (the draft board), and
from my experience, the kind of people attracted to militia groups
have indeed been more willing than average to answer their nation's call.
In fact, this week's issue of TimeOrNewsweek(?) reports on
the prevalence of militia sympathizers and racists in combat units
of the Armed Forces. Who else do you think _would_ be willing
to risk death for a mere pittance?
This is also true of police forces (remember Mark Furman,
the much-decorated cop who collects Nazi war medals) and the National Guard.
(This is also true, I'm told, of police in today's Germany.)
This is not a failure of regulations; it's human nature that people
most attracted to violence will be attracted to armed service.
That's why the Founding Fathers felt that a standing army
or select militia (e.g. the National Guard) was such a threat
to liberty -- just as it is the prime threat to emerging democracies
around the globe.
It turns out that the petty bourgoise craftsmen tend to make
unenthusiastic soldiers, so the formation of a standing army
and select militia was inevitable. But the founders felt that
this subversive force could be balanced by a citizenry that was
well-armed anyway, or if not well armed, one in which individuals
had the right to acquire arms should they ever feel the need.
That's why they said that a well-regulated militia, properly consisting
of the entire population (with the possible exception of a few public
officials) was necessary to the security of a free state.
And if you _do_ manage to give the military and police a monopoly
on the use of force, who do you think will staff these institutions?
Yeshivah bochrim?
Mark T Pitcavage
>: In article <4inkqg$6...@fishlab5.fsh.mtu.edu>,
>: Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>: > Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless either
>: >of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
>: >then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
>: >be ZERO.
>
>: Alan Berg might have disagreed.
>
>: As might an Arkansas policeman murdered because a neo-Nazi paramilitary
>: thought he was Jewish.
>
>: Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
>: couple of militia-ites using the anti-Semitic white-supremacist militia
>: fantasy ^The Turner Diaries^ as a blueprint.
>
><snicker> Tell it to the FBI. A sleazy book more poorly written than a
>dime store novel... a blue print. What next?
Why would you discount it? Members of the Order freely admitted using it as a
blueprint. It appears that some of the Arizona Patriots also did so. If them,
why not McVeigh?
Alan Horowitz
>So far the states have chosen....
>That's their perogative.
So far, 38 states have chosen to establish by law, militias that are not
subject to being federalized. For example, Massachusetts, New York,
California.
Douglas Meier
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia <cdem...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>Perhaps you should return to your medication and nice padded room. You
>see John, truth requires something called proof, which as yet I haven't
>seen from any of you yahoos. But do rave on, please, you are doing so
>much to counter millitia critcs charges of anti-semetism/racism.
>
assertion. The individual or group that is accused in that assertion is not
required to prove themselves innoceny of that assertion. Otherwise, I could
accuse you of being someone who runs around in graveyards under full moons
biting the heads off of live chickens (and base it on the most rudimentary
evidence, such as the possibility that I've seen you near a graveyard) and the
responsibility would then fall to you to prove that you weren't.
The assertion that "All militia groups are lead and peopled by racists and
Neo-Nazis," is not demonstrably false. However, that is not the standard of
proof. It needs to be demonstrably *true* to have any weight. So far, the
best any of the anti-militia posters have done in proving their assertion is
offer a couple of quotes from two people who lead a couple of militia groups.
This, by far, does not constitute demonstrable proof by any stretch of the
imagination, except to those who desperately want to believe that militias are
out to get them. This is nothing short of paranoia.
--
Douglas C. Meier | Any opinions presented in the preceding
Northwestern University, TSS | text should be attributed to myself only,
| not to my employer or university. I
dme...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu | speak for neither.
William R. Discipio Jr
A 'blueprint'?! C'mon. The only thing specific in that book was that a
federal building would be blown up. Hardly a novel idea. I suppose next
we'll see Baltimore being nuked. Sheesh, some conspiracy theorists...
John Luebbers
>Charles Scripter <cesc...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>> Since you seem to agree with the original contention, unless
either
>>of those numbers presented in the first clause is greater than ONE,
>>then the usage of "another" is incorrect, since this number can only
>>be ZERO.
>
>Alan Berg might have disagreed.
>
>As might an Arkansas policeman murdered because a neo-Nazi
paramilitary
>thought he was Jewish.
>
>Then there are 170 or so dead people in Oklahoma City, murdered by a
>couple of militia-ites using the anti-Semitic white-supremacist
militia
>fantasy ^The Turner Diaries^ as a blueprint.
There is a greater connection between Mcveigh and the ADL. I put the
blame of the 169 dead squarely on the ADL.
Martin Fox
>
><4in5ec$b...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
>Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>> Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
>> constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia as
>> well as provisions for their call to federal service. Otherwise, they are
>> under control of the states. Are any of the so-called citizens militias
>> under Congressional regulation or state control?
>
>Yes. The states have the authority to arm, train and appoint leaders
>of citizens militias.
>
>So far the states have chosen a Lassaiz Fare (sp?) attitude.
>That's their perogative.
They have not chosen a laissez faire attitude. The states do not have the
authority to provide the arms for the militia; Congress does and has done so
in the form of the National Guard. The states have the right to train their
militia subject to the disciplin laid down by Congress and they do so with the
only legally authorized militia, the National Guard.
I repeat what I've said earlier. Read the Constiturion on the powers and
duties of the President and the Congress.
>
>
>> By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias
>> have shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our society.
>
>Gee, then I guess President Clinton really blundered
>when he provided the catalyst for this movement's growth.
This movement existed before Clinton was heard of beyond the boundries of
Arkansas and needed no catalyst other than paranoia.
>
>
>>> It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
>>> arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
>>
>> Under the regulation mentioned above.
>
>They _are_ under the regulation of the states.
>The states have chosen to make these regulations quite loose.
Since I don't like to swear on the WEB, I will not use the two word phrase
that best describes the last. The so-called citizens militias are not under
any control but that of their so-called officers. None of the so-called
officers are under any kind of control, not even self.
>
>
>>>Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
>>>regular basis to sharpen their skills,
>>
>> Has their method of drill been approved under the regulation
>> mentioned above?
>
>What is not forbidden is permitted. Therefore, yes.
They cannot call themselves militias unless they are under the proper control.
>
>
>> Is the so-called citizens militia willing to be called
>> to federal service? All the evidence I've seen is to the contrary.
>
>It's called the Selective Service (the draft board), and
>from my experience, the kind of people attracted to militia groups
>have indeed been more willing than average to answer their nation's call.
The militia is called into Federal service in units. Responding to draft
calls is not the same. I suspect that, if the draft is ever used again, the
members of the so-called citizens militias would be one of the worst disciplin
problems to the army.
>
>In fact, this week's issue of TimeOrNewsweek(?) reports on
>the prevalence of militia sympathizers and racists in combat units
>of the Armed Forces. Who else do you think _would_ be willing
>to risk death for a mere pittance?
>
>This is also true of police forces (remember Mark Furman,
>the much-decorated cop who collects Nazi war medals) and the National Guard.
>(This is also true, I'm told, of police in today's Germany.)
>
>This is not a failure of regulations; it's human nature that people
>most attracted to violence will be attracted to armed service.
>That's why the Founding Fathers felt that a standing army
>or select militia (e.g. the National Guard) was such a threat
>to liberty -- just as it is the prime threat to emerging democracies
>around the globe.
Then why did they give governmental bodies and officials the authority over
the only authorized militia (National Guard). I repeat, read the
Constitution. It is one of a citizen's first duties to really understand
that document.
>
>It turns out that the petty bourgoise craftsmen tend to make
>unenthusiastic soldiers, so the formation of a standing army
>and select militia was inevitable. But the founders felt that
>this subversive force could be balanced by a citizenry that was
>well-armed anyway, or if not well armed, one in which individuals
>had the right to acquire arms should they ever feel the need.
I repeat what I said about my not wanting to swear on the WEB. Read the
Constitution!
>
>That's why they said that a well-regulated militia,
As authorized under the description of the powers of the President and
Congress. Read the Constitution!!
> properly consisting
>of the entire population
Where did they ever say that.
> (with the possible exception of a few public
>officials) was necessary to the security of a free state.
>
>And if you _do_ manage to give the military and police a monopoly
>on the use of force, who do you think will staff these institutions?
>Yeshivah bochrim?
Your paranoia is showing.
>
>Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
>Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
>
Lets get down to cases. Let us assume that the right to bear arms is
unrestricted (as you seem to interpret it). I would like to arm myself.
Don't as why. Just tell me which of the following weapons I may own and
which I cannot. Please also give me your rational.
1. A pistol.
2. A rifle without the capacity for a 20 bullet magazine.
3. A rifle with the capacity for a 20 bullet magazine (or larger).
4. A machine gun.
5. A howizer.
6. A larger artillery piece (I don't know the nomenclature).
7. A bomber loaded with conventional bombs.
8. A bomber with an atom bomb.
9. A bomb with a hydrogen bomb.
I am particularly interested in the answers that you and other defenders of
the unlimited right to bear arms will give me. If you only post your answer
here, I may well not see it. Please respond by e-mail as well.
Martin Fox
f...@stt.msu.edu
William J. Shugard
>
> But then if you Militia twits had
> half an ounce of brains you might realise that full auto weapons are
> useless for waging a guerilla campaign, which is what I suspect you'll
> probably try to do "when the time comes" as one milita moron put it.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression Clinton's gun ban was
directed at machine guns. All the cosmetically defined assault weapons,
whose future manufacture was banned by the Crime Bill, are
semi-automatic. They fire one shot for each pull of the trigger.
I'm not surprised you made this mistake, the media did an absolutely
terrible job reporting on the assault weapons legislation. Quite a few
members of the House made remarks during the debate on HR4296 (the trial
balloon for the ban) that they were banning machine guns.
It seems to me, the media deserve quite a bit of the blame for our
current situation. They did a truly bad job analyzing the effect of
controversial legislation. Only after it passed was any mention made by
the media that the law could be easily circumvented (though it was
obvious to anyone who read the legislation). They also failed to report
the formation of militias (which started at least 6 months before the
Crime Bill passed) robbing legislators of any indication of the unusual
depth of reaction to their legislation. When they finally did report on
militias after OKC, they painted the militias with a broad brush as
racist and anti-Semitic without asking any question about where they
came from or why they formed to such large numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shugard | I do not speak for my employer.
viewer
>I feel safe at home. I feel safe in my work place. I feel safe in my
>unarmed (I believe) neighborhood. I feel safe traveling in western Europe,
>Japan, china, and India where I only have to worry, in some places, about my
>wallet and not about my life. I even feel safer in Israel with terrorism than
>in some parts on the heavily armed US.
Hahahahahahahah!!!!
Israel is armed to the teeth! *Everyone* is packin' there, sonny!
By the way, just because you *feel* safe, doesn't mean you *are* safe.
Charles Scripter
> f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote:
> >Just as free speech means we must put up with KKK propaganda,
> >so does the right to keep and bear arms mean that we have to let
> >those jerks be armed.
> Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
Okay, let us so so:
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.
> bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
No, the purpose is to ensure that the people are armed. The
reasoning for ensuring that the people are armed, is that a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Please consult the text above and the Federalist Papers for details.
> National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
Incorrect. As you can see from the complete text of the 2nd, it
does not guarantee the National Guard the Right to keep and bear arms,
but rather it gurantess THE PEOPLE the Right to keep and bear arms.
For a better understanding of the reasons for this protection, consult
the Anti-Federalist.
Further, the National Guard is part of the Federal Army. As such
they fall under that part of the militia which is in the employ of the
Federal government (see Article 1, Section 8). The other part of the
militia, the unorganized militia, consists of every able bodied man,
with only a few exceptions. Congress' power to control the militia is
limited to those who are in the employ of the government.
And lastly, a well-regulated militia is one which is well trained,
smoothly operating and efficient (and not under government control).
> >But just as the best cure for bad ideas is competing good ideas,
> >freely exchanged, so is the best cure for the threat of armed haters
> >the deterrent force of millions of armed _good_ people.
> Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
Threat of a civil war should be enough to keep the government in
line. But as always, if push comes to shove, then the people may be
forced to resort to force to protect themselves against such tyrants.
Read the Declaration of Independence for details. Likewise, see
Federalist #28 and perhaps Federalist #29.
--
Charles Scripter * cesc...@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there
is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ..."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Charles Scripter
On 19 Mar 1996 20:29:00 GMT, Martin Fox (f...@stt.msu.edu) wrote:
> Read the responsibilities of the Congress and President under the
> constitution. These include the regulation and arming of the militia as
> well as provisions for their call to federal service.
And the 2nd Amendment exists just in case the President and
Congress fail to perform their duty to arm and train the militia.
Thomas Jefferson: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be
trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be
trusted with the government of others?"
> Otherwise, they are
> under control of the states.
No, only if they are in the employ of their respective government.
The PEOPLE own the State and federal governments, not vise-versa. We
are not subjects of the government, but it is our employee!
Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain
the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in government."
> Are any of the so-called citizens militias
> under Congressional regulation or state control?
Non Sequitur.
> Where do the so-called citizen's militias fit this?
"Unorganized Militia" (i.e. every able bodied person)
Thomas Jefferson (letter to Thomas Cooper, 1814): "The Greeks by
their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took
care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of
oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every
man a soldier, and oblige him to repair to the standard of his
country when ever that was reared. This made them invincible;
and the same remedy will make us so."
> Here in Michigan we have militia leaders claiming that they can call public
> meetings to void laws passed by legislative bodies. On what authority?
My guess would be, on the authority that Sovereign Citizens have
ALL Rights, excepting those in conflict with express-powers which are
granted to a government, and the fact that the State is usurping
powers not granted to them via the Constitution. See Federalist #84
for a discussion of the principle of granted powers.
Thomas Jefferson, (letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12th,
1823): "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and
should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common
sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical
subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing,
at pleasure."
> We
> have militia members claiming the right to drive without a drivers license.
Which clause of the Michigan Constitution granted the State the
power to require such drivers licenses? Please be specific and to the
point. If such a power has not been granted to the State, via the
Constitution, then this requirement is an act of tyranny.
> Where did they get that right?
Only God grants Rights. All others are "privileges", subject to the
whims of the government granting them. The Right to freely travel is
well recognized, even in English Common Law (several hundred years old).
> By their very acts and stastements, the so-called citizens militias have
> shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our sodiety.
By such language and lack of understanding of Constitutional
principles, you have shown yourself to be a clear and present danger
to society. (Hey, ain't this cool! Just like a witch trial! Point
fingers and "poof", they're guilty as charged, without a trail or
evidence presented. ;)
Thomas Jefferson: "Above all I hope that the education of the
common people will be attended to so they won't forget the basic
principles of freedom."
Thomas Jefferson:"To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of
darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education."
> > It is the duty of every "member" to not only own
> >arms but also to be skilled and knowledgable about them.
> Under the regulation mentioned above.
Regulation is "training". "Well-regulated" can be found in the
Oxford dictionary. If you can't find it, I'll dig through my
electronic archive for several of the refernces to such.
> >Therefore, if a number of citizens should choose to come together on a
> >regular basis to sharpen their skills,
> Has their method of drill been approved under the regulation mentioned above?
The fact that the respective governments have failed to perform
their duty to train these and drill these men, as required by law,
this in no way abrogates their right to train themselves. Likewise if
the governments decline to arm these men, the 2nd guarantees them the
right to arm themselves.
Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to
the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives
moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others
of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant
companion of your walks."
> > one could hardly say that it has
> >"no authority or legitimacy."
> One can and I will.
And you will be wrong.
> > That is clearly a lie.
> The truth is not a lie.
I'm glad we agree on this point.
> > And to imply that
> >such skill-building is somehow a "paramilitary vigilante group" is
> >propaganda of the highest order. While a couple of extreme citizens who
> >have engaged in these activites have commited crimes,
> More than a couple.
How many? Be specific. Once that is done, you next need to
present proof that it was the organization's fault, and not the
individual's.
However, let me know if you prefer "guilt by association" as the
accepted method of proof... ;)
> > it hardly makes any
> >persons coming together to practice a "vigilante" taking laws into their
> >own hands. Please show us evidence that this assertion is as widespread as
> >you claim.
> I have demonstrated that some of the Michigan leadership have done so.
Thus far, you have only asserted such.
> They have
> disrupted meetings of several township boards and have claimed the authority
Read the Magna Charta, essentially an enumeration of the Rights of
Citizens under Common Law. (in particular, the basis of a Grand Jury
is there. Who serves on a Grand Jury? 25 Sovereigns.)
Oh, and lest you forget. Michigan is a Common Law State (as per
the Michigan Constitution).
Maybe you should also read about the battle of Athens (Ohio).
> (nonexistent) to call public meetings to nullify acts of legislative bodies.
They don't have the right to call public meetings? I can see that
you despise the 1st Amendment as much as the 2nd.
Here's one more bit of wisdom to contemplate:
Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787):
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a
rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain
quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the
forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what
country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a
few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Charles Scripter
subscribe to Talk.Politics.Guns)
On 20 Mar 1996 16:54:49 GMT, Martin Fox (f...@stt.msu.edu) wrote:
> >>Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
> >>bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
> >>National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
> >
> > Our laws? What country do you come from?
> The US. Congres, charged under the constitution with regulating the militia
> has done so by declaring that the National Guard is the militia.
Congress could declare that Pi = 3, but it won't make it so...
Fortunately for the Citizens of the US, Congress does not have the
power to pass statutes which supercede the Constitution. The 2nd
Amendment guarentees the Right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And the 10th Amendment ensures that they pass no laws, not in support
of their Constitutionally granted powers.
> >>Are you suggesting a second Civil War?
> >
> > Predicting at this point....
> Who will start if? You? Is that why you post anonymously?
Wait, isn't this what is known as a "fallacy of logic"?... Lessee,
which fallacy is this?...
But Mr. E. V. is not alone in his prediction. I understand that
several police organizations have made similar predictions.
> I feel safe at home. I feel safe in my work place.
But then you're not a woman, walking around unarmed on the campus
of Michigan State. Has MSU had any rapes this year? I thought so...
For the readers of T.P.G., Michigan State is a strong proponent of
victim disarmament. You're expected to call Public Safety for help,
though they themselves sit in a building behind locked doors (one even
has a retinal scanner for "security" ;). I wonder why these armed
officers are afraid to walk around on campus at night?
> I feel safe in my
> unarmed (I believe) neighborhood.
Funny, I feel safe, even surrounded by all these heavily armed
"Yoopers". Gee...maybe it's the people, and not the fact that they
own firearms...
> I even feel safer in Israel with terrorism than
> in some parts on the heavily armed US.
Which parts of the US? Be specific. (you might be surprised by
what restrictions exist in the area in question).
> > E. Vigilance
> Does E. Vigilance mean form vigilante groups?
It obviously means "Eternal Vigilance".
David Snyder
Silbermann) wrote:
> [...]
> Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
> > Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms
> > (or arm bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..."
> > which means the National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>
> Please cite the judicial decisions which explicitly say this.
> I bet you won't find a single judicial opinion like that
> over twenty years old, and from a lower court at best
> (and balanced by an overwhelming number of judicial dicta
> saying the exact opposite).
>
I forget where I read this, but it seems to me that Mr. Fox's
interpretation of the right to bear arms is the standard one. It seems to
me all the courts have actually used this logic until recently. When guns
were at issue (which was rarely), I seem to remember that the main way
control was avoided was that the weapans in the hands of the populace were
mainly used for hunting so it came under the "pursuit of property" line of
thought.
>
> [...]
>
> Do you deny that anti-Jewish attitudes based in the New Testament
> have led to the murder of more Jews in the past 200 years than
> the widespread private ownership of guns?
>
Yes and if guns are widespread I can guaranty that no matter what we Jews
do, there will always be more anti-semites with guns than Jews with guns.
Jews stand to benefit most from societies where there is substancial
restrictions on the mob as well as large amounts of personal freedom.
Remember fascism, for example, in many ways provides an outlet for the
masses in allowing them to mill around as an aimless mob while their
freedoms are taken away.
> [...]
> And I don't see how the prevalence of danger in our society
> will be reduced if you implant into the hearts of millions of Americans
> a fierce hatred of the government.
>
> You will certainly accomplish this if you manage to pass laws
> infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Frank Silbermann f...@cs.tulane.edu
> Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
Agree with the first paragraph, but the very presence of militias leads to
the propagation of hatred against government as well as idiotic actions by
the government. The more people have the opportunity to "drop out" as it
were by joining a militia for a sense of security that is normally
provided by the government/community, the less people feel the need to
participate in the community/government at large. And as people care less
about their government, the government will be less responsive and more
hated, thus feeding the cycle. Read a good history of the Weimar period.
The Weimar government was mediocre but it managed to deal quite
successfully with Germany's precarious post-world war I position. What
destroyed the Weimar coalition was that people did not trust the
government's ability to provide for the common good so the government lost
its "mandate" and slowly sunk to the point where it was controlled by the
reactionary few.
Moreover, I should hope we are beyond acting like kindergardeners where we
throw tantrums when things do not go our way. I should think we can all
behave as somewhat rational agents and learn to work within the system
until the system itself reaches unbearable illigitamacy. If we are not
that rational, then maybe we should not have access to any guns...
That is it. The problem is that we have not learned the basic
socialization we were supposed to in kindergarten.
David Snyder
Jeff Randall
>fire...@gate.net (Awesome1) wrote:
>>Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> says:
>>>Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms (or arm
>>>bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
>>>National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>>
>> Our laws? What country do you come from?
>>
>The US. Congres, charged under the constitution with regulating the militia
>has done so by declaring that the National Guard is the militia.
You have been misinformed. US Code, title 10, section 311 defines the
National Guard as *one part* of the militia:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32 [which adds retired military under 64], under 45 years
of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intent to
become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of
the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia.
Therefore, under US Federal law, *YOU* are as much a part of the militia
as the National Guard.
--
ran...@truth.uph.com | George Orwell was an optimist:
I speak for myself... | "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the
until they destroy the | job of the Government to rein in people's rights."
1st Amendment as well. | -President Bill Clinton
Alan Horowitz
The Order used the Peruvian Maoist group Sendero Luminoso as their model
for "revolutionary" bank robberies.
There were less members of The Order than the number of Jews who have
been arrested and held without trial in Israel, for the crime of
"sedition" against the Peres government, in recent days.
Charles Scripter
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:39:32 -0800, David Snyder (dasn...@uci.edu) wrote:
> In article <4ipdlk$i...@rs10.tcs.tulane.edu>, f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank
> Silbermann) wrote:
> > Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
> > > Not so. Please read the entire statement on the right to bear arms
> > > (or arm bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..."
> > > which means the National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
> >
> > Please cite the judicial decisions which explicitly say this.
> > I bet you won't find a single judicial opinion like that
> > over twenty years old, and from a lower court at best
> > (and balanced by an overwhelming number of judicial dicta
> > saying the exact opposite).
> I forget where I read this, but it seems to me that Mr. Fox's
> interpretation of the right to bear arms is the standard one. It seems to
Nope. You've got it *completely* backwards.
> me all the courts have actually used this logic until recently. When guns
> were at issue (which was rarely), I seem to remember that the main way
> control was avoided was that the weapans in the hands of the populace were
> mainly used for hunting so it came under the "pursuit of property" line of
> thought.
Nope. The way these firearms have avoided these bans is by being
MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS. That is, weapons which contribute to the
efficacy of a well-regulated militia. So hunting arms are not
protected, only military weapons...
> > Do you deny that anti-Jewish attitudes based in the New Testament
> > have led to the murder of more Jews in the past 200 years than
> > the widespread private ownership of guns?
> Yes and if guns are widespread I can guaranty that no matter what we Jews
> do, there will always be more anti-semites with guns than Jews with guns.
So you cure this by trying to alienate those non-Jewish people, who
might stand up for you against the anti-Semites... An unusual
technique; Though I guess it makes it possible for you to be a martyr.
> Jews stand to benefit most from societies where there is substancial
> restrictions on the mob as well as large amounts of personal freedom.
So you're telling me that the Rights of Jews are more important
than the Rights of everyone else?... How curious...
> Remember fascism, for example, in many ways provides an outlet for the
> masses in allowing them to mill around as an aimless mob while their
> freedoms are taken away.
You can learn about the dangers of Democracies in Federalist #10.
viewer
>On 19 Mar 1996 20:35:54 GMT, Martin Fox (f...@stt.msu.edu) wrote:
>> bears). The purpose is "... a well regulated militia ..." which means the
>
> No, the purpose is to ensure that the people are armed. The
>reasoning for ensuring that the people are armed, is that a
>well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
>Please consult the text above and the Federalist Papers for details.
>
>> National Guard and, under our laws, nothing else.
>
> Incorrect. As you can see from the complete text of the 2nd, it
>does not guarantee the National Guard the Right to keep and bear arms,
>but rather it gurantess THE PEOPLE the Right to keep and bear arms.
>For a better understanding of the reasons for this protection, consult
>the Anti-Federalist.
Oh, right. Next thing, you'll have us believing that the right of the
people to peaceably assemble, speak freely, practice religion, and so
forth is NOT limited to the government? (AKA, "the people")
Surely you jest.
No society can long survive unrestrained "rights" being exercised by
mere commoners. This is why the founders, in their wisdom, reserved
all rights to the government, so that we might have a secure state.
As loyal subjects, we must learn to obey, and serve. Once we have
learned to be appropriately deferential to Those In Authority, we
will be rewarded with whatever liberties they, in their wisdom, deem
reasonable to extend to us.
I wish you extremists would learn to act like REAL Americans!
John Luebbers
writes:
>>public
>>>meetings to void laws passed by legislative bodies. On what
>>license.
>>>
>>have
>>>shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to our sodiety.
>>>
>
>
>>
>>>I have demonstrated that some of the Michigan leadership have done
so.
>>>disrupted meetings of several township boards and have claimed the
>>authority
>>bodies.
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>Martin Fox
>>>
>>In what way are militias a threat to our society? There is nothing in
>>the constitution that says militias are illegal. What are you
paranoid
>>about Martin?
>
>I am not paranoid. Read the two paragraphs above that I kept from my
>posting. We have so-called citizens militias in Michigan that are
>declaring themselves to have the authority to nullify the laws adopted
by
public
>order.
>
>In Michigan we have four legitimate ways to change laws that we don't
like.
>
>1. By referendum. Circulate a petition and, if you get enough
signatures of
> registered voters, the matter will be on the ballot. Then
convince a
> majority of voters.
>
>2. Recall those members of the legislative body who voted for it.
Again, a
> petition and an election. If the recall is successful, elect
replacements
> who agree with you.
>
>3. When the terms of those mentioned in 2 end, elect replacements who
agree
> with you.
>
>4. Challenge the law in the courts on constitutional grounds.
>
>Martin Fox
>
>
>
>
ourselves? Why are we required to pay a voluntary income tax? The only
problem with common law courts is that the sentences usually arent
carried out. We have no recourse anymore. Have you ever heard of vote
fraud? The constitution has been trashed since 1933.
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia (cdem...@gate.net) wrote:
: <snip>
Of course, snip all of my response to you, that always makes for urbane
discussion.
:
: : President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
: : Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid US CODE section 10
: : JPEG/ME TOO List!
: : Czar of alt.gif-agreement
: : Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
: : Kibo for President in '96
: : Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
: : *FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: I suppose that because you consider yourself liberal, it is alright for
: you to be a homophobe.
:
A ummm interesting conclusion, alas I'm afraid that it is not even a
little bit based in reality. I'm not a homosexual myself, but I have
friends who are. My .sig deals with the current CDA law, I use
"Cocksucker" in ref. to the Lenny Bruce story. But please, do continue to
be clueless...I'm sure censorship under a law that doesn't even permit
you to discuss homosexual issues is much preferable to taking actions to
protest it (ie Joining the EFF, Civil Disobedience, such as in my .sig).
Oh, and BTW: I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A LIBERAL (OR CONSERVITIVE)!
Perhaps your astounding illiteracy kept you from noticing that the first
time, I do certainly hope this helps.
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and The collective IQ of the net just went down by 10
points
Czar of alt.gif-agreement
Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
Kibo for President in '96
Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
*FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
:
: : :
: : :
: : : John
: : :
: : :
: : :
: --
Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia
: Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia (cdem...@gate.net) wrote:
: <snip>
: : President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
: : Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid US CODE section 10
: : JPEG/ME TOO List!
: : Czar of alt.gif-agreement
: : Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
: : Kibo for President in '96
: : Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
: : *FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: I suppose that because you consider yourself liberal, it is alright for
: you to be a homophobe.
No, I do however consider you (no matter whether you're a homosexual or
not, frankly a persons sexual choices matters not a spit to me) to be a
clueless git. Oh yes, it makes much more sense to attack me, who has done
nothing to homosexuals, than to oppose the CDA authored by our blecherous
"friend" Sen. Exon which makes illegal the very discussion of sexual
issues. You astound me with your logic, sir. BTW, perhaps you are stupid,
or mayhaps just illiterate because as I said in the article you saw fit
to snip: I AM NOT A BLOODY LIBERAL, I AM NOT A BLOODY CONSERVITIVE! 'Kay,
great, thanks...please drive through.
President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
Neocheater, Critic, and *Sigh* yeah that's it, I'm just a great big
homophobe, yeah, yeah that's the ticket.
John Luebbers
writes:
>Hey idiot, that government building was blown up by one of you militia
>fruit-cakes.
winger. AS he wrote a letter to the editor in Buffalo advocating
Billary's health plan. mcveigh was put up to the bombing by the freedom
hating ADL.
William J. Shugard
>
> The crazies already hate the government and don't need additional excuses.
> If we disarm them, we will remove a clear and present danger.
>
> Martin Fox
Exactly who is going to disarm "them"? We've already had incidents at
Ruby Ridge and in Waco that should shake your faith in the ability of
the BATF or FBI to deal with "crazies". Unlike what the ADL and
Southern Poverty Law Center believe anti-Semitism and racism did not
create the militia movement, heavy handed government action and bad gun
control legislation did. More heavy handed government action will make
things worse, and things are already bad enough now.
Congress and law enforcement need to address the irritants that's lead
to the formation of militias. Repeal Clinton's gun ban, punish those
responsible for Waco with more than a wrist slap, and prosecute
Horiouchi (sp?) for the shot that killed Vicky Weaver. Do that and only
a small number of racists and anti-Semites who have always been there
will remain.
Frank Silbermann
>> Yes. The states have the authority to arm, train and appoint leaders
>> of citizens militias.
>>
>> So far the states have chosen a Lassaiz Fare (sp?) attitude.
>> That's their perogative.
>
David Snyder <dasn...@uci.edu> wrote:
> I may be mistaken as I sometimes tend to be but
> something sounds familiar. A state regulated,
> citizen organization that trains in case it needs to be
> called for war... Sounds much like the "National Guard" to me.
The _National Guard_ is _federally_ regulated.
It was not created under the auspices of the militia clause;
but rather as part of the powers that permit Congress
to raise an army.
Also, the National Guard could not qualify as a _properly_
constituted militia because it does not include the great
majority of able-bodied citizens.
Any individual whom the government has the power to draft
into the armed forces is a member of the militia
(and subject to being called for war). The state has
the authority to regulate the training of _all_ such people.
It has long been the will of the people that the state
make no demands on the militia until its members are
actually called up. But individual initiative in preparation
is praiseworthy.
William J. Shugard
>
> Agree with the first paragraph, but the very presence of militias leads to
> the propagation of hatred against government as well as idiotic actions by
> the government. The more people have the opportunity to "drop out" as it
> were by joining a militia for a sense of security that is normally
> provided by the government/community, the less people feel the need to
> participate in the community/government at large. And as people care less
> about their government, the government will be less responsive and more
> hated, thus feeding the cycle. Read a good history of the Weimar period.
> The Weimar government was mediocre but it managed to deal quite
> successfully with Germany's precarious post-world war I position. What
> destroyed the Weimar coalition was that people did not trust the
> government's ability to provide for the common good so the government lost
> its "mandate" and slowly sunk to the point where it was controlled by the
> reactionary few.
I certainly agree with the above paragraph, but I conclude from it that
Congress needs to address the underlying causes of the militia movement.
Repeal Clinton's gun ban at the very least. The government also needs
to address the government screwups at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
> Moreover, I should hope we are beyond acting like kindergardeners where we
> throw tantrums when things do not go our way. I should think we can all
> behave as somewhat rational agents and learn to work within the system
> until the system itself reaches unbearable illigitamacy. If we are not
> that rational, then maybe we should not have access to any guns...
>
> That is it. The problem is that we have not learned the basic
> socialization we were supposed to in kindergarten.
>
> David Snyder
To the extent you're advocating using government to fix the problems
that government created, I agree. If you're saying that members of the
militia movement are behaving like un-socialized kindergartners because
militias formed in reaction to the infringement of the Second Amendment,
I disagree. To many people, the Second Amendment is a statement of who
holds the ultimate power in the country, the governed or the government.
I don't find it surprising some of the people, who hold the view that
civilian gun ownership is a check on the power of the government, formed
militias as the Clinton gun ban worked it's way through Congress.
Having said that, I should hasten to add, I think militias represent an
accident waiting to happen, and I'd be more comfortable if they
disbanded for the time being. However, they exist because Clinton's gun
ban hit a nerve not because some people have a problem with basic
socialization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shugard | I don't speak for my employer.
William R. Discipio Jr
: : Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of Frobnia (cdem...@gate.net) wrote:
: : <snip>
: :
: : : President-For-Life of Frobnia Rev. Gypsy Joker KSC, IM, SP4, Earl of Fives
: : : Neocheater, Critic, and Coming Soon! The Nekkid US CODE section 10
: : : JPEG/ME TOO List!
: : : Czar of alt.gif-agreement
: : : Dean of the Taki-Washi Kuno School of Anything Goes USENET Flames
: : : Kibo for President in '96
: : : Kuno or Gypsy on IRC
: : : *FUCK* the CDA, Sen. Exon is a *COCKSUCKER*!
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: :
: : I suppose that because you consider yourself liberal, it is alright for
: : you to be a homophobe.
: No, I do however consider you (no matter whether you're a homosexual or
: not, frankly a persons sexual choices matters not a spit to me) to be a
: clueless git.
Clue time! *YOU* are the one insulting people by implying they are
homosexual!
: Oh yes, it makes much more sense to attack me, who has done
: nothing to homosexuals, than to oppose the CDA authored by our blecherous
: "friend" Sen. Exon which makes illegal the very discussion of sexual
: issues.
What do Senator Exon's sexual activities have to do with *anything*?
: You astound me with your logic, sir.
Your projection reinforces my original perception of you. Good work.
: BTW, perhaps you are stupid,
: or mayhaps just illiterate because as I said in the article you saw fit
: to snip: I AM NOT A BLOODY LIBERAL, I AM NOT A BLOODY CONSERVITIVE!
Yeah, and you aren't a homophobe either... "cocksucker." :) :) :)
: 'Kay, great, thanks...please drive through.
ken whitehead
|> In article <dgoldenD...@netcom.com>, dgo...@netcom.com (David
|> Golden) wrote:
|>
|> > [...]
|> > Incidentally, the Jewish community (or to be more precise, the
|> > left-leaning, non-traditional component) is doing a
|> > wonderful job fueling anti-semitism by launching a political
|> > attack on militias. [...]
|>
|> Hmmm, I think that the right-leaning Jewish community is doing a wonderful
|> job fueling anti-semitism by criticizing sensitive groups on the left.
|>
|> I should hope that Jews are not to be censored for "creating"
|> anti-semitism as this is anti-semetic in and of itself, although I doubt
|> if anything the Left of the Jewish community will increase the nascient
|> anti-semitism always present on the Right, while the anti-semetism on the
|> Left does seem reactive.
|>But that is neither here nor there, the fact
|> that Right-leaning Jews should make such comments is indicative of
|> something... I wish I had the words to vocalize what.
|>
|> David
How about this. Jews aren't monolithic any more than anybody else, and
when leftwing jews try to monopolize Jewish speech by claiming to speak
for all Jews, there is bound to be some opposition.
The ADL made a mistake trying to tar all the militias with the same
brush; most of the recent growth of militias has had a pro-constitutional
impetus, not a race-hate motivated one.