The Militia Question In Perspective
David A. Tharp
The "Militia" movement raises some questions that go beyond or
transend the nutball right core of the movement. I being a liberal
am sensitive to police abuse. People who aren't sensitive to such abuse
are despite rhetoric to the contrary are quite pro-governmental in the
only ways that count. Conservitives for the past 30 years have fought
the black,liberal, neighborhood movement to hold the police accouuntable
for their actions. The local police & not some mythical Black Helicopters
are the true source of Governmental abuse.
Police review boards made up of local residents was the solution proposed
for the problem. Little or no need was felt for a kick ass privite army.
I will repeat my stance from talk.politics.guns. America without being
a dictatorship does do crappy things to it's citizens. There is no
COSMIC CONSPIRACY behind this but local & federal acting 85% of the time
from a perceived need. There is also a problem of blunderbuss enforcement
of the laws. In about 15% of the times there is corrupt politicians involved
but in a non cosmic way. Bribes are taken (by white people) & laws are
broken (by white people.) The drug & crime problem which is quite real
allow and in the real world encourage polititians & cops to forget constitutanional nicieties. The Teapot dome scandle of the 20s and Watergate in the 70s
show the workings of wrongdoing without black helicopters or a mythical
Jewish conspiracy.
There is a need to hold polititians accountable but this can't &
shouldn't be done in an extralegal manner. The "Militias" are comfortable
with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners. No FBI guy while
he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia. One
question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
and hispanics?
--
David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
When in doubt, fake it!
dckom
On Sat, 30 Nov 96 18:48:04 GMT c.e., bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
wrote :
Hurrah, again! I think I'm going to like this guy. Just for the record, he
ain't me. I know how paranoia is around here.
>
>
>The "Militia" movement raises some questions that go beyond or
>transend the nutball right core of the movement. I being a liberal
>am sensitive to police abuse. People who aren't sensitive to such abuse
>are despite rhetoric to the contrary are quite pro-governmental in the
>only ways that count. Conservitives for the past 30 years have fought
>the black,liberal, neighborhood movement to hold the police accouuntable
>for their actions. The local police & not some mythical Black Helicopters
>are the true source of Governmental abuse.
Amen, and amen. As someone was pointing out around here, elected local law
enforcement can come under the thumb of a Bull Conner. Although I differ
with you on the "mythical" nature of the black helicopter phenominon.I've
seen the suckers. I don't know what the military is up to, exactly, but I
don't like it."Routine" training missions begin to look like some form of
intimidation, flown over civilian areas.
>
A great deal edited.
>There is a need to hold polititians accountable but this can't &
>shouldn't be done in an extralegal manner. The "Militias" are comfortable
>with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
>Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners. No FBI guy while
>he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia. One
>question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
>What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
>and hispanics?
Pity you're showing up just after the folks around here voted to pitch out
the net-nazi's. Some of your concerns might have been alleviated.
What we're looking at is a situation where attitudes toward state power
that have been common in, for lack of a better word "left" circles, are
beginning to show up on the "right". I'm still not exactly sure where this
fits in with, for instance, my political views, but I'm building cautious
bridges.
All very well to attack central governmental power, but with no
understanding of how economic elites function, a clear path could be
accidentally laid for a total corporate take over.
I don't have a problem with extra-legal, or non-electoral political
movements, per se. I'm interested in seeing one that represents the
broadest areas of folks who're having human rights stripped, however.
And one that understands about the unity of ends, and means.
David Christian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman
Steven D. Sybesma
On Sat, 30 Nov 96 18:48:04 GMT David A. Tharp [bl...@yfn.ysu.edu] wrote:
: There is a need to hold polititians accountable but this can't &
: shouldn't be done in an extralegal manner. The "Militias" are comfortable
: with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
: Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners. No FBI guy while
: he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia. One
: question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
: What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
: and hispanics?
Ah...you're so ignorant. You're not worth an explanation.
Steve
Joseph T. Adams
David A. Tharp (bl...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: The "Militia" movement
which you obviously know nothing about . .
: raises some questions that go beyond or
: transend the nutball right core of the movement.
which demonstrates how little you know about it.
: for the problem. Little or no need was felt for a kick ass privite army.
The Militia is not a "privite [sic] army" but rather the entirety of
the People acting in the exercise of their inalienable right to defend
themselves, their families, their communities, and their countries.
: The "Militias" are comfortable
: with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them.
Bullshit. We view all oppression and injustice as equally
intolerable.
After all, it was the mass murder of dozens of mostly non-white men,
women and children in Waco - who, by Texas standards, were almost entirely
unarmed - which persuaded most of us that government-sponsored murder
MUST stop and that we must do ANYTHING that we can do to stop it.
: After all they(like
: Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners.
More bullshit. We don't hate anyone, and some of us WERE Black
Panthers.
Idiot.
: One
: question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
: What has your all white militia
I dunno. I don't know of any "all white militia" and in fact there is
no such thing. (There are, in predominately white areas, Militia
UNITS (subsets of the Militia) which are predominately white.) Here
in the Cleveland area, the majority of Militia members, like the
majority of the community overall, are NOT white.
: done to prevent police abuse of blacks and hispanics?
Since a significant number of us ARE Black and/or Hispanic, I'd say
that we've done quite a bit.
Even those of us who are white have done a great deal to prevent,
expose, and punish instances of police (and other) brutality against
minority Americans. Ever hear of the "Good Ole Boys' Roundup," or the
arrest of Ray Lampley, or our investigations of white supremacist
involvement in the OKC tragedy, or our investigations of Black church
burnings in the South? You haven't? Then you don't have the first
clue as to what the Militia is all about.
Since we believe in the God-given and inalienable rights of ALL
people, and welcome ALL who are willing to do their part to defend
them - not only including, but ESPECIALLY including, members of
minority groups - many of those who have been victimized find in
Militia participation a way they can help to right those wrongs, and
prevent recurrence in the future, through entirely legal and positive
and effective means.
Now what have YOU done to prevent police abuse of Blacks, Hispanics,
or for that matter anyone else?
Joe
aha...@aol.com
In article <849379684$85...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>The "Militias" are comfortable
>with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
>Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners.
man, you really haven't been hanging around here long, have you?
>No FBI guy while
>he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia.
that entirely depends on whether or not the professor in question has
requested our assistance. Remember that unlike liberals, we don't go
where we aren't wanted.
> One
>question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
>What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
>and hispanics?
hmm, you obviously weren't paying attention or you would have noticed the
series of posts recently concerning the police abuses against Black
citizens in Florida...that is a situation which we are monitoring, but I
cannot comment beyond that at this time. We also happen to have black and
hispanic militia members, but of course you probably aren't aware of that
either...hmm, just where do you get your information on the militia
movement anyway?
Arlin H. Adams
Janet Littler
>
> Re: The Militia Question In Perspective
Arlin,
Maybe we should start gathering intel on Mr. Tharp? It obvious that he
either knows nothing about the militia movement or he is just another
troublemaker. He sounds like some of those paranoid cops who fought so
hard to break up the Guardian Angels a few years ago. He really ought to
explain himself better.
Janet
Hummer
Janet,
Actually, it appears that Mr. Tharp is being directed rather than
direct. So, what could you expect in the way of research or perspective ?
Hummer
Janet Littler <ad...@seorf.ohiou.edu> wrote in article
<849427389$98...@atype.com>...
:
: >
: > Re: The Militia Question In Perspective
:
:
aha...@aol.com
In article <849427389$98...@atype.com>, ad...@seorf.ohiou.edu (Janet
Littler) writes:
>Maybe we should start gathering intel on Mr. Tharp? It obvious that he
>either knows nothing about the militia movement or he is just another
>troublemaker.
Hi Janet,
I vote for both of the above...it's amazing how little some people can
know, and still believe they have something meaningful to say, isn't it?
Arlin
dckom
On Sun, 1 Dec 96 10:03:04 GMT c.e., "Hummer"
<TheFirs...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>
>Janet,
>
> Actually, it appears that Mr. Tharp is being directed rather than
>direct. So, what could you expect in the way of research or perspective ?
>
> Hummer
>
Willingly dense, I would say, but that doesn't equal "directed".
I'd still love to see a discussion of historical examples of militia power
in use. I picked up on that, in his original post, and left the ideological
defense to y'all.
David Christian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If I stand, will you stand with me?"
Angelic Upstarts
Joseph Pothier
Steven D. Sybesma wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 96 18:48:04 GMT David A. Tharp [bl...@yfn.ysu.edu] wrote:
>
> : There is a need to hold polititians accountable but this can't &
> : shouldn't be done in an extralegal manner. The "Militias" are comfortable
> : with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
> : Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners. No FBI guy while
> : he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia. One
> : question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
> : What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
> : and hispanics?
>
> Ah...you're so ignorant. You're not worth an explanation.
>
> Steve
You *did not* answer the man's question. You simply used an ad hominemism against him.
Can you as a militiaman [or, at least a 'fellow traveler] give this newsgroup any
specific examples of a militia group helping--- in any way--- a minority group?
I'm somewhat curious. If you can't then why not just say so.
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
Richard Kann
Janet Littler wrote:
>
> >
> > Re: The Militia Question In Perspective
> >
> > From: aha...@aol.com
> > Reply to: aha...@aol.com
> > Date: Sun, 1 Dec 96 3:48:33 GMT
> > Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.13)
> > Newsgroups:
> > misc.activism.militia
> > Followup to: newsgroup(s)
> > References:
> > <849379684$85...@atype.com>
> >
> >
> >In article <849379684$85...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
> >writes:
> >
> >>The "Militias" are comfortable
> >>with any federal repression that isn't aimed at them. After all they(like
> >>Hoover) hate the Black Panthers & the flag burners.
> >
> >man, you really haven't been hanging around here long, have you?
> >
> >>No FBI guy while
> >>he is breaking into a professor's house has to fear the Militia.
> >
> >that entirely depends on whether or not the professor in question has
> >requested our assistance. Remember that unlike liberals, we don't go
> >where we aren't wanted.
> >
> >> One
> >>question for any Militia member who considers himself to be honest:
> >>What has your all white militia done to prevent police abuse of blacks
> >>and hispanics?
> >
> >hmm, you obviously weren't paying attention or you would have noticed the
> >series of posts recently concerning the police abuses against Black
> >citizens in Florida...that is a situation which we are monitoring, but I
> >cannot comment beyond that at this time. We also happen to have black and
> >hispanic militia members, but of course you probably aren't aware of that
> >either...hmm, just where do you get your information on the militia
> >movement anyway?
> >
> >Arlin H. Adams
>
> Arlin,
>
> Maybe we should start gathering intel on Mr. Tharp? It obvious that he
> either knows nothing about the militia movement or he is just another
> troublemaker. He sounds like some of those paranoid cops who fought so
> hard to break up the Guardian Angels a few years ago. He really ought to
> explain himself better.
> Janet
I think Mr. Tharp should contact Florida Today (the Red paper) since he
is so good at reporting the news regardless of the facts. As a local
reporter told me "We don't have time to research what we print" and "I'm
not familiar with Filegate, Vince Foster or Craig Livingstone".
I would however like to thank them for the two-day front page spread
they did on our group. Yes, it was full of lies, distortions, and
leaps-of-faith type conclusions. But boy, did it help membership. I need
to hire a secretary to handle all the calls of people who want to join.
Rick Kann
Commander
19th Regiment
Constitutional Militia of Florida
David A. Tharp
Arlan Adams is unaware of the general composition of militias which is
overwhelmingly WASP! The late Robert Welch would kick anti-semites out
of the Birch Society without asking himself why they were drawn to his
group in the first place. The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
if you don't like the conduct of the government.
David A. Tharp
Janet is in error when she aludes to a right to protect that which she
doesn't own or something as abstract as a country. My father was a Democrat
while my mother was a Republican because of that I find it easy to
see both sides of an argument. I'm proud to be a liberal but I'd be
crazy to protect America from conservitives who would let rich people
from paying taxes by blowing up the local courthouse & Janet would be just
as crazy if she tried to protect America from liberals who would make the rich
pay taxes by blowing up the local courthouse.
Ernest Austin II
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> writes:
>The "Militia" movement raises some questions that go beyond or
>transend the nutball right core of the movement. I being a liberal
>am sensitive to police abuse. People who aren't sensitive to such abuse
>are despite rhetoric to the contrary are quite pro-governmental in the
>only ways that count. Conservitives for the past 30 years have fought
>the black,liberal, neighborhood movement to hold the police accouuntable
>for their actions. The local police & not some mythical Black Helicopters
>are the true source of Governmental abuse.
David:
You are only partly right. The true cause of abuses in this society is the
indifference of the people to the problems around them. Note that reforms
such as the "trust busting" legislation of the T. Roosevelt administration
happened because of public concern. We need a citizenry that is willing to
work for reform instead of tearing down the government.
--
***************************************************************
* *
* Ernest Austin II eaus...@delphi.com *
* Defender of Liberalism Scourge of the Right Wing *
* Proud owner of an Amiga 2000 computer *
* Embrace knowledge Cast out hysteria *
* *
***************************************************************
dckom
On Wed, 4 Dec 96 19:48:33 GMT c.e., bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
wrote :
>
>
>Arlan Adams is unaware of the general composition of militias which is
>overwhelmingly WASP! The late Robert Welch would kick anti-semites out
>of the Birch Society without asking himself why they were drawn to his
>group in the first place. The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
>if you don't like the conduct of the government.
>--
>David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
>When in doubt, fake it!
Well, obviously you know far more about Arlin's own movement then he
does. Dave, your sig is the most interesting thing about your posts, you're
faking it, and not too convincingly. And just when I thought another
history freak was coming onboard.
David
Joseph T. Adams
David A. Tharp (bl...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: Arlan Adams is unaware of the general composition of militias which is
: overwhelmingly WASP!
Arlin Adams is LEADER of a MULTIRACIAL Militia unit in a largely
NONWHITE community.
He also single-handledly responded - in the most unfriendly manner
possible - to nearly every white supremacist posting made in this
newsgroup for an approximately six week period, during a Nazional
Appliance invasion, ably articulating the Militia's viewpoint that ALL
Americans are entitled to life, liberty, property and due process of
law.
You'd know these things if you observed one of the most basic rules of
netiquette, namely, to READ a newsgroup for a little while, and learn
what it's about, before opening your big and uninformed mouth.
: The late Robert Welch would kick anti-semites out
: of the Birch Society without asking himself why they were drawn to his
: group in the first place. The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
: if you don't like the conduct of the government.
And what has the ACLU done lately to prevent abuse of, say, the 1st /
2nd / 4th / 5th / 9th / 10th Amendments?
They have at least arguably done more to further, rather than resist,
the transmogrification of our once-great Republic into a
socialist/fascist police state.
Good people with guns are necessary to halt and reverse the
government's rapid march toward totalitarianism.
If you don't like the way we're doing it, and have any suggestions as
to how we might do it better, than by all means do let us know.
But in the meantime, you would serve yourself and everyone else here
best if you would learn what the hell you're talking about before
posting. Clue #1: people IN the Militia - especially in leadership,
as some of us are - know MUCH more about the Militia, than people who
merely watch TV. Clue #2: the same is true of every other area of
life.
Joe
David S.
The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
>if you don't like the conduct of the government.
>--
Hmmmm...the ACLU...the people that teach our children to hate
themselves if they happen to be unlucky enough to be born into a
family that does NOT use welfare?? The same group that teaches our
children to feel sorry for the convicted criminals, the child
molesters and rapist....
Yeah...that's the ticket...
aha...@aol.com
In article <849728913$16...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>Arlan Adams is unaware of the general composition of militias which is
>overwhelmingly WASP!
LOL! uh hello? David? I *am* one of the militia people on this
newsgroup, and funny thing is, that in my unit only two of us fit the
'WASP' category...oh, and about 40% of our folks are female,
too...sheesh...you've got to stop reading all that fund raising stuff the
splc puts out - it's beginning to effect your judgement.
> The late Robert Welch would kick anti-semites out
>of the Birch Society without asking himself why they were drawn to his
>group in the first place.
uh, wouldn't know, we don't have any JBS types in our group.
> The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
>if you don't like the conduct of the government.
The ACLU is a tiny organization. More to the point it will never be
acceptable as long as it refuses to acknowledge RKBA as an individual
right. Sorry David, no sale!
Arlin Adams
aha...@aol.com
In article <849738827$22...@atype.com>, Ernest Austin II
<eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
> Note that reforms
>such as the "trust busting" legislation of the T. Roosevelt
administration
>happened because of public concern. We need a citizenry that is willing
to
>work for reform instead of tearing down the government.
Ernest you are correct as you go, and certainly we in the Constitutional
Militias are working to educate and motivate people within their
communities. What you seem to be missing is that there must also be an
option available should government prove intransigent to such attempts at
reform, and continue to increase it's oppressive activities.
Arlin Adams
Hummer
Your ignorance is showing. Better step into a side room and read a
ton of Deja News.
Hummer
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote in article
<849728913$16...@atype.com>...
:
:
: Arlan Adams is unaware of the general composition of militias which is
: overwhelmingly WASP! The late Robert Welch would kick anti-semites out
: of the Birch Society without asking himself why they were drawn to his
: group in the first place. The ACLU & not the militias is the way to go
: if you don't like the conduct of the government.
: --
:
David A. Tharp
Arlan Adams is assuming that I think the militias are totally Wasp.
Such is not the case. One simple question for Mr. Adams: Are you a
member of a non-Article 10 militia? Don't waste bandwidth by quoting
Mason. We're not by any stretch of the English language all members.
I for one am not a member of your group and don't claim to speak for
your members. Sooooooooo you shouldn't claim to speak for anyone outside
your group. The real Militia is the National Guard and the various state
militias. These operate under the sanction of the law and are under the
Command of the president or the respective state governors.
What concrete steps has your (so far) unidentified group done to stamp out
political corruption? The stamping out of such corruption is the reason
given to all those who are smart enough to know there is no Z.ionist
O.ccupation G.overnment.
aha...@aol.com
In article <849748683$31...@atype.com>, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
writes:
>Arlin Adams is LEADER of a MULTIRACIAL Militia unit in a largely
>NONWHITE community.
*ahem* coordinator, Joe, the correct title is Coordinator - you ever try
to 'lead' a group consisting of everything from a Messianic Christian to
several Pagans, and you'd understand what I mean...similar in many aspects
to attempting to herd cats....
Arlin
aha...@aol.com
In article <849832383$76...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>Arlan Adams is assuming that I think the militias are totally Wasp.
that was certainly the implication of your last post.
>Such is not the case.
thankyou.
> One simple question for Mr. Adams: Are you a
>member of a non-Article 10 militia? Don't waste bandwidth by quoting
>Mason. We're not by any stretch of the English language all members.
>I for one am not a member of your group and don't claim to speak for
>your members.
It's like this David: you'll notice that I've been studiously avoiding
Mark's endless attempt to debate our legitimacy. We consider ourselves to
be legitmate under the traditions of this country and the intent of the
founders, including the George Mason quote that seems to bother you so
much. We are, as you also noted, legitimized under Article 10 of the Bill
of Rights. Whether or not *you* consider us to be such is entirely
irrelevant to our continued existance and growth.
As to whom I speak for: I have advised, and continue to advise a number of
different Constitutional Militia unit leaders in various parts of the
country. Whether or not *you* consider me knowledgable concerning the
movement, someone certainly must, or I wouldn't have a federal wiretap on
my phone, now would I?
Arlin H. Adams
Janet Littler
>
> Re: The Militia Question In Perspective
>
> From: aha...@aol.com
> Reply to: aha...@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 16:20:31 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups:
> misc.activism.militia
> Followup to: newsgroup(s)
> References:
Arlin,
What a lot of people, including Mr. Tharp, forget is that the unorganized
militia is the last line of defense to "preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Before anyone can hope to "take over" this country totally, they must
destroy the militia. Unfortunately, there has been such a heavy
infiltration of the media, government and law enforcement etc. that it may
come down to just that.
The major question, then, is just how much do we love our country and the
freedoms we have enjoyed?
Janet
a...@centuryinter.net
> Whilst sitting naked, David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu said:
>
> Arlan Adams is assuming that I think the militias are totally Wasp.
> Such is not the case. One simple question for Mr. Adams: Are you a
> member of a non-Article 10 militia? Don't waste bandwidth by quoting
> Mason. We're not by any stretch of the English language all members.
> I for one am not a member of your group and don't claim to speak for
> your members. Sooooooooo you shouldn't claim to speak for anyone outside
> your group. The real Militia is the National Guard and the various state
> militias. These operate under the sanction of the law and are under the
> Command of the president or the respective state governors.
>
> What concrete steps has your (so far) unidentified group done to stamp out
> political corruption?
David, the militia is the manifestation of the citizen warfighters right to
abolish government that is corrupt. The fore-fathers foresaw this need in the
DoI, in this context the militia exists as the people's defence against an
inevitable totalitarian regime created by an apthetic population prone to give
away fundamenal rights for security. The capability and readiness to fight to
defend this land and the Constituion are signs that we may regain our freedom.
MCB
Joseph T. Adams
aha...@aol.com wrote:
: >Arlin Adams is LEADER of a MULTIRACIAL Militia unit in a largely
: >NONWHITE community.
:
: *ahem* coordinator, Joe, the correct title is Coordinator - you ever try
: to 'lead' a group consisting of everything from a Messianic Christian to
: several Pagans, and you'd understand what I mean...similar in many aspects
: to attempting to herd cats....
Oops . . . .sorry about that! I knew you did something like that, but
didn't know your exact title.
Joe
a...@centuryinter.net
The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP)
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 has changed the
status of the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the Office of the Director
of Civilian Marksmanship effective October 1, 1996.
The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP), an advisory
board to the Secretary of the Army was disestablished by this law and
replaced by the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and
Firearms Safety. This Corporation will be a non-governmental, tax exempt
organization governed by a Board of Directors. The initial board will be
appointed by the Secretary of the Army and will be responsible to develop
all policies and procedures for the implementation of all aspects of the
CMP. The Director will conduct all operations and is responsible to the
Board for the actions of the Corporation.
No federally appropriated funds may be used by the Corporation to conduct
operations. All funds must be generated by the Corporation through
authorized sales and fees charged. The Corporation may solicit, accept and
retain funds and services from donations, bequests or gifts.
The law authorizes the Corporation to continue to sell M1 Garand rifles and
gives further authority to sell any surplus caliber .30 (excluding the M14
rifle) as well as caliber .22 rimfire rifles. These sales may be to
individuals or clubs and associations which are affiliated with the CMP.
The Corporation is also authorized to sell surplus caliber .30 and caliber
22 rimfire ammunition to qualified individuals and affiliated
organizations. Additionally, the Corporation may sell repair parts for all
surplus caliber .30 rifles and caliber .22 rimfire rifles.
The Corporation may charge fees for all competitive events authorized by
the CMP. The events will continue to include all Excellence in Competition
(LEG) matches and the National Rifle and Pistol Trophy Matches. The law
authorizes the National Matches to continue to be conducted at Camp Perry,
Ohio.
All funds collected by the Corporation shall be used only to conduct the
official functions of the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
The CMP is authorized to provide support and encouragement to clubs and
state associations with emphasis on strong junior programs. These programs
will include instruction in the basics of marksmanship, firearms and range
safety, competitive marksmanship and any subjects related to rifle safety.
The Corporation is authorized to provide rifles, ammunition, targets and
other supplies to affiliated organizations in support of programs. These
rifles may be either loaned, sold or leased to clubs and associations.
Ammunition will be authorized based on junior members participation in an
organization's activities. Funds collected from the sale or lease of any
items in support of affiliated clubs may be used only to cover direct and
indirect costs of the CMP operation.
The Corporation will assume the responsibility for the Distinguished Rifle
and Pistol programs from the NBPRP. This responsibility entails all files
and records and the award of Distinguished badges to civilian competitors
in both categories. The Corporation will provide suitable awards to
affiliated clubs and associations for junior participation in various
marksmanship programs.
The Civilian Marksmanship Program will continue to support marksmanship
activities oriented toward the young men and women of the United States.
Marksmanship and firearms safety are every shooter's responsibility. What
better gift is there than a concerned adult who will give something of such
solid value to help a youngster? This new Corporation stands ready to help
as the youth of this great nation receive quality instruction, in
marksmanship and rifle safety which will allow them to take their place
with other responsible citizens and sportsmen.
Purchase Procedures - Service Grade M1 Garand Rifle
1. Eligibility Requirements:
A person must provide proof the applicant is at least 18 years of age,
a citizen of the United States and a current member of a DCM
affiliated club or state association (in good standing). Additionally,
this person must provide proof of high power rifle marksmanship
activity, as outlined below. All persons must consent to and
successfully complete a background check which will require the
applicant's fingerprints. The applicant must also certify compliance
with all federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the
purchase of this rifle. Each applicant is authorized to purchase one
service grade M1 Garand rifle. The current price for this rifle is
$310.00
2. Acceptable high power rifle power marksmanship activity consists of one
of the following:
a. Proof of Distinguished Rifleman status.
b. Current National Rifle Association (NRA) Instructor Certification
for Rifle.
c. An NRA high power rifle classification card or NRA temporary score
record book reflecting at least 50 shots fired in an NRA
registered/approved high power competition.
d. A match bulletin which indicates the applicant has fired at least
50 shots in an NRA registered/approved high power competitive event.
e. A letter from an DCM affiliated organization indicating the
applicant has fired in an instructional clinic or annual record
firing.
f. A current military identification card (copy of both sides) which
reflects status as Active Duty or Reserve Component in the uniformed
services of the United States. This does not include retirees.
g. A certificate of completion of the Small Arms Firing School (SAFS),
Rifle at the National Rifle and Pistol Trophy Matches, Camp Perry,
Ohio.
3. An applicant may obtain an applicant packet to purchase an M1 rifle by
writing to:
Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment (CMSD)
ATTN: CMSD-R
P.O. Box 576
Port Clinton, Ohio 43452
David A. Tharp
No state Nice (like Switzerland) or mean (like Libya) recognize the
right of insurrection. The USA doesn't either. Look in your history
books and look up Shay's rebellion or the civil war. The common good
is aided by this means although it allows a modicum of corruption to exist.
The Communist or the Montanna Militia may not like what Bill Clinton is doing
but 51% of the 48% who bothered to vote approve of him.
There are something like 250,000,000 people in this country. How many of them
agree with Arlan Adams? The majority might be fools but 350 people with guns
stand a better chance of being wrong.
aha...@aol.com
In article <850227736$24...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>
>There are something like 250,000,000 people in this country. How many of
them
>agree with Arlan Adams?
LOL! oh good heavens, David, are you suggesting that I run for office?
Hmm, let's see, well, if you figure that right now we represent about 5
percent of the population...and growing...hmm, well, maybe in another 10
years or so, we might actually be able to field militia candidates...now
*that* could be interesting....
Arlin Adams
Ernest Austin II
<aha...@aol.com> writes:
>Ernest you are correct as you go, and certainly we in the Constitutional
>Militias are working to educate and motivate people within their
>communities. What you seem to be missing is that there must also be an
>option available should government prove intransigent to such attempts at
>reform, and continue to increase it's oppressive activities.
Arlin:
We live in a democratic system. It is open to reform; note the many
laws passed each year. We do not need a militia; the militia has done no-
thing to prevent government abuses. Besides, who decides if the government
is oppresive? A group of people who do not represent the majority?
Arlin, put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in a
museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
aha...@aol.com
In article <850432707$71...@atype.com>, Ernest Austin II
<eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
> We live in a democratic system. It is open to reform; note the many
>laws passed each year.
not a good example, Ernest - the vast majority of laws do nothing except
increase the governmental bureaucracy while decreasing individual
liberties - if this were not the case then there would be no need for the
'war on drugs' now would there?
> We do not need a militia;
no, what you mean to say is that you are afraid of the militias, there is
a big difference.
> the militia has done nothing to prevent government abuses.
again, patently untrue. The recent federal conviction of a former FBI
agent in the Ruby Ridge murders was due in large part to political
pressures which were brought about by us - even such mainstream media
figures as Dan Rather have admitted as much.
> Besides, who decides if the government is oppresive?
> A group of people who do not represent the majority?
Under the Nuremburg Principles *every* *individual* in a society is
responsible for making that decison for her/himself. No person may ever
hide behind 'the majority' in this matter.
> Arlin, put away the gun.
LOL! not a chance.
> Militias are useless;
I've just disproven that.
>they should be in a museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
no what you mean to say is that you are terrified of people taking
responsibility for their own lives - it makes you feel bad that you aren't
courageous enough to take responsibility for yours...
Arlin H. Adams
Richard Kann
Ernest Austin II wrote:
>
> <aha...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Ernest you are correct as you go, and certainly we in the Constitutional
> >Militias are working to educate and motivate people within their
> >communities. What you seem to be missing is that there must also be an
> >option available should government prove intransigent to such attempts at
> >reform, and continue to increase it's oppressive activities.
>
> Arlin:
>
> We live in a democratic system. It is open to reform; note the many
> laws passed each year. We do not need a militia; the militia has done no-
> thing to prevent government abuses. Besides, who decides if the government
> is oppresive? A group of people who do not represent the majority?
> Arlin, put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in a
> museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
> --
> ***************************************************************
> * *
> * Ernest Austin II eaus...@delphi.com *
> * Defender of Liberalism Scourge of the Right Wing *
> * Proud owner of an Amiga 2000 computer *
> * Embrace knowledge Cast out hysteria *
> * *
> ***************************************************************
Bravo. With a slight accent added you could be the next Adolph Hitler
double.
Richard Kann
Richard Kann
Mike Chapman
In article <850227736$24...@atype.com>,
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>No state Nice (like Switzerland) or mean (like Libya) recognize the
>right of insurrection.
Uh-duh. Very insightful.
>The USA doesn't either. Look in your history
>books and look up Shay's rebellion or the civil war.
Uhm, tell you what, check out this tricky little document called
The Declaration of Independence sometime.
>The common good
>is aided by this means although it allows a modicum of corruption to exist.
>The Communist or the Montanna Militia may not like what Bill Clinton is doing
>but 51% of the 48% who bothered to vote approve of him.
So any actions of a democracy are legitimate??? Are you fucking nuts?
>There are something like 250,000,000 people in this country. How many of them
>agree with Arlan Adams? The majority might be fools but 350 people with guns
>stand a better chance of being wrong.
So indeed, we are left with a test of military skill.
David A. Tharp
The War of Independence was a broad based movement that had the sanction
of the people although it was opposed to the (then) status quo. The new law
that was aborning replaced the old law that was a dieing Isn't it strange that
a movement (the militias)which is supposed to be anti-governmental bases itself
on a skewered interpetation of a Federal law IE Title 10?
--
David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
"Patriotism is the virtue of the visious." Oscar Wilde
aha...@aol.com
In article <850574901$12...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
> Isn't it strange that
>a movement (the militias)which is supposed to be anti-governmental bases
>itself on a skewered interpetation of a Federal law IE Title 10?
LOL! first of all, David, you *meant* 'skewed' not 'skewered'. Secondly,
if you will recall *I* haven't tried to argue Title 10 with you at all,
now have I?
Arlin Adams
David A. Tharp
Notice how the various militia posters can see things that were invisible
to Bob Dole? I say this with irony but not sarcasm. What advantage does
a group of amed men (& women) have over mere reformers
when the subject matter is political corruption. Bob Dole kept the Tobacco money
& Bill Clinton kept the Indonesian money. This is truely a puzzle! Mr. Adams
with a non-wasp majority militia cautions Armgeddon but does little in the interim.
Walter Ulrich
> Ernest Austin II <eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
[snip]
> We live in a democratic system.
No we don't. We supposedly live in a republic.
> It is open to reform; note the many laws passed each year.
Of which 99.9% serve only to create the illusion that Congress is "doing
this about that", or are special favors to special interest groups, or
nothing more than regulations upon regulations which the clever or
wealthy will find away around in the long run.
> We do not need a militia; the militia has done no-
> thing to prevent government abuses. Besides, who decides if the government
> is oppresive? A group of people who do not represent the majority?
>You< don't "need" the militia because you'd be happy in a totalitarian
dictatorship. "...who decides if the government is being oppressive?" I do,
comrade.
> [...] put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in a
> museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
Yeah, right, Ernie, that's why the police, most governmental agencies, criminals,
and the military don't carry guns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie's Credo:
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Self-Protection Is Weakness
aha...@aol.com
In article <850667588$16...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>What advantage does
>a group of amed men (& women) have over mere reformers
>when the subject matter is political corruption.
simple, they can ignore you, because if they do, you have no ultimate
recourse - we, on the other hand, DO have an ultimate recourse.
> Mr. Adams
>with a non-wasp majority militia cautions Armgeddon but does little in
the interim.
you haven't been paying attention again David - first off I said that our
organization includes a wide variety of different types of people - we
don't pay attention to racial characteristics, and we don't use
quotas...which means that in those areas where the population is
monocultural our units are monocultural and in the areas where the
population is polycultural so are our units. Secondly, and as
importantly, the Constitutional Militias have *three* basic areas in which
we act: First in educating our fellow citizens as to their rights and
responsibilities. Second in supporting our local communities both
directly and through volunteer activities in other areas of our lives, and
Finally through preparation for defense of those communities. Now, what
have you done to alter the current situation...did you even bother to vote
in the last election?
Arlin Adams
Mike Chapman
On Sun, 15 Dec 96 22:48:09 GMT, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich)
wrote:
>> Ernest Austin II <eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
>> We live in a democratic system.
>
>No we don't. We supposedly live in a republic.
What again is the difference????? Must be some other language you're
using, you aren't making any sense to me.
----
Brought to you by the "Vote 7.62x51 for Real Change" Committee.
Don't stick anything through my front door you don't plan on losing.
David A. Tharp
Arlan Adams might not have been arguing Article 10 with me but most of the
militia people in this newsgroup has. The militia people have but 2 things
to fall back on , Article 10 or a presumed common law right to form military
units. A lot of the time which fallback a particular militia member uses isn't
mentioned.The first (1792) militia law was unpopular because of its coercive
nature. The laws which followed it suffered from the same defect.
Militia people who talk about arbitrary government power overlook the
most arbitrary power of all:the power to force people into military service.
Libertarians & pacifist have rocognized this while mainstream conservitives
blinded by John Wayne machoism have overlooked it.
In colonial times there were vouluntary militias but they were subserviant to
civilian authority. Do ityourself armies have never in America (or elsewhere)
cut the mustard. Insurrection is verboten in every civilized state & in
every not so civilized state.
robo...@aol.com
In article <850690089$17...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter
Ulrich) writes:
>>You< don't "need" the militia because you'd be happy in a totalitarian
>dictatorship. "...who decides if the government is being oppressive?" I
do,
>comrade.
>
>
I am living in a totalitarian dictatorship, apparently the first in
history where the dictator is elected and cannot be dictator for more than
8 years.
What is your definition of a "totalitarian dictatorship".
Mine is say, Iraq, Iran, etc..
"Mr. President, truth is not always a pleasant thing"--Gen. "Buck"
Turgidson (USAF)
"Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own"--Gen. Jack D.
Ripper (USAF)
"Watch out for snakes!" -- Tom Servo
"Bite me, its fun"-- Crow T. Robot
Walter Ulrich
> robo...@aol.com writes:
> In article <850690089$17...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter
> Ulrich) writes:
> >>You< don't "need" the militia because you'd be happy in a totalitarian
> >dictatorship. "...who decides if the government is being oppressive?" I
> do, comrade.
> I am living in a totalitarian dictatorship, apparently the first in
> history where the dictator is elected and cannot be dictator for more than
> 8 years.
> What is your definition of a "totalitarian dictatorship".
> Mine is say, Iraq, Iran, etc..
>>>>
Perhaps if you hadn't edited the original post so clumsily the actual
meaning of what I wrote would be self-evident. I didn't say that the
U.S. was >currently< a totalitarian dictatorship...but that, given the
trends toward disarming the populace abetted by Mr. Bill and his
followers, one can put two and two together. It is the sole issue he
hasn't wavered on or abandoned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States
for an OUTRIGHT BAN, picking up EVERY ONE of them...Mr. and
Mrs. America turn 'em in, I would have done it. I could not do that.
The votes weren't there." Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - 60 Minutes -
02-05-95 - Now, is that clear?
David A. Tharp
Mr. Adams fufges the issue by calling his groups & others like it
constitutional militias. Mr. Adams's group is a privite afair with no
governmental sanction or control. The Constitutional militia proper are those
under the control of elected officials. Military units are the proper function
of the government. No state recognizes insurrection & no state allows free standing
do-it-yourself armies.
--
David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
:-) Bad speller, nice person :-)
aha...@aol.com
In article <850774683$21...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>Arlan Adams might not have been arguing Article 10 with me but most of
the
>militia people in this newsgroup has. The militia people have but 2
things
>to fall back on , Article 10 or a presumed common law right to form
military
>units. A lot of the time which fallback a particular militia member uses
isn't
>mentioned.The first (1792) militia law was unpopular because of its
coercive
>nature. The laws which followed it suffered from the same defect.
well David, you missed the first and most fundamental reason for our
existance - the natural and inherent right of self-defense...or don't you
believe in natural rights?
Arlin Adams
David L Evens
Mike Chapman (mi...@paranoia.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 15 Dec 96 22:48:09 GMT, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich)
: wrote:
: >> Ernest Austin II <eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
: >> We live in a democratic system.
: >
: >No we don't. We supposedly live in a republic.
: What again is the difference????? Must be some other language you're
: using, you aren't making any sense to me.
A Republic has the form of a government, selected by whatever means,
which is based upon a written Constitution which sets out the
relationship between the Government and the People, and which strictly
sets down the powers and responsibilities of that Government. It is also
the norm that the method of selection of the people who compose that
Government also be contained in the Constitution. The other form of
government is that headed by some arbitrarily selected individual or
group of individuals in which ultimate authority resides. For instance,
the UK has this form of government.
Any method of non-hereditary selection of persons for government
positions is allowed in the general Republic form, although demomcratic
selection methods have the twin advantages of tending to limit the
severity of corruption and of making the whole apparatus less efficient,
which are both generally good things.
The most hideous governments in history all share the trait of being
corrupt, and those that commited crimes on the largest scale also have
the property of being efficient.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Chapman
In article <850961529$22...@atype.com>,
David L Evens <dev...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>: >No we don't. We supposedly live in a republic.
>
>: What again is the difference????? Must be some other language you're
>: using, you aren't making any sense to me.
>
>A Republic has the form of a government, selected by whatever means,
>which is based upon a written Constitution which sets out the
>relationship between the Government and the People, and which strictly
>sets down the powers and responsibilities of that Government. It is also
>the norm that the method of selection of the people who compose that
>Government also be contained in the Constitution. The other form of
>government is that headed by some arbitrarily selected individual or
>group of individuals in which ultimate authority resides. For instance,
>the UK has this form of government.
You've fabricated a meaning for a very old word. That's not what it
means - rather, it includes what you describe above, and other
forms of government.
As I have exhaustively described in other posts, the etymologies and
historical usages of the words "democracy", "republic" and "commonwealth"
mean essentially the same thing - government of, by and for the people.
The concept of a constitution or limited powers is UTTERLY irrelevant
to the meaning of "republic". I don't know when the definition you
use was fabricated out of ignorance, but it has unfortunately become
wisespread in the US. However, "democracy" and "republic" are not
really English words and have LONG-STANDING meanings. Democracy
means rule by the people and republic a public thing, a commonwealth.
There is a subtle difference between "democracy" and "republic" but it
has nothing to do with constitutions - certainly not written ones.
We have these handy things in English called adjectives. Use them.
Don't corrupt perfectly good words for your convenience.
The United States is a constitutional, representative, federal
republic. It is equally a constitutional, representative,
federal democracy. Neither "democracy" or "republic" describe
our government in sufficient detail to differentiate it from most
other governments which now exist.
Mark T Pitcavage
Chapman is right.
ma...@netmanage.com
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Chapman is right.
Wow! Never thought I'ld see the day
But then, probably neither did Mark...8-)
-Matt
David A. Tharp
I do beleive the overwhelming fascination the rightwing has with guns
has blinded them to a large chunk of reality! The majority of Americans
don't own guns. X number of non-gun owners are indeed tree huggers, however
a large portion of the remainer are people who seriously take to heart
the biblical command:"Though shall not kill."
The gun owning right remained silent 30 years ago when a homosexual by the
name of J. Edger Hoover was pissing on the constitution. During the 50s &
60s the FBI did a lot of "blackbag jobs." This was documented by the ZChurch
Comission & others. In England the conservitives enjoy freedoom withour
enjoying gun ownership.
Walter Ulrich
> bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp) writes:
> I do beleive the overwhelming fascination the rightwing has with guns
> has blinded them to a large chunk of reality! The majority of Americans
> don't own guns.
I believe that the left-wing's fascination with guns has blinded them
to a large chunk of reality!
Between 1981-1991 43,700,00 firearms were manufactured in the U.S.
and 4,380,000 were imported (Source - BATF - ATF Ready Reference
1992). The number of estimated firearms owned by private individuals
in the U.S. is estimated at roughly 285,000,000. Now, I'd like you to
PROVE that the "majority of Americans don't own guns.
> X number of non-gun owners are indeed tree huggers, however
> a large portion of the remainer are people who seriously take to heart
> the biblical command:"Though shall not kill."
In the original Hebrew the commandment reads: "Thou shalt not commit
MURDER."
You try to >murder< me, I'll kill you.
> The gun owning right remained silent 30 years ago when a homosexual by the
> name of J. Edger Hoover was pissing on the constitution. During the 50s &
> 60s the FBI did a lot of "blackbag jobs." This was documented by the ZChurch
> Comission & others. In England the conservitives enjoy freedoom withour
> enjoying gun ownership.
So what? In China the private ownership of a gun is punishable by death.
The gun owning left has remained silent about Federal abuses right now.
"Right"/"left" are meaningless labels. "Pissing on the Constitution"...includes
attempting to ignore the Second Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton is a Democrat, but he doesn't inhale. So there are going to be
two Republican conventions. I think it's too bad, there are four or five
issues that need to be considered, but they won't be." Eugene McCarthy - 09-96
aha...@aol.com
In article <851037542$60...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>I do beleive the overwhelming fascination the rightwing has with guns
>has blinded them to a large chunk of reality! The majority of Americans
>don't own guns. X number of non-gun owners are indeed tree huggers,
however
>a large portion of the remainer are people who seriously take to heart
>the biblical command:"Though shall not kill."
David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible - the
use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big difference.
Even Jesus acknowledged the apostles' need for weapons of self defense.
>The gun owning right remained silent 30 years ago when a homosexual by
the
>name of J. Edger Hoover was pissing on the constitution. During the 50s &
>60s the FBI did a lot of "blackbag jobs." This was documented by the
ZChurch
>Comission & others. In England the conservitives enjoy freedoom withour
>enjoying gun ownership.
your two statements are unrelated, nor do they directly apply to American
gun owners.
Arlin Adams
Ernest Austin II
Richard Kann <HUNT...@concentric.net> writes:
>> Arlin:
>>
>> We live in a democratic system. It is open to reform; note the many
>> laws passed each year. We do not need a militia; the militia has done no-
>> thing to prevent government abuses. Besides, who decides if the government
>> is oppresive? A group of people who do not represent the majority?
>> Arlin, put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in a
>> museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
Folks:
Let me point a few things out:
1. We live in a democratic system. We elect many of our officials. Our
system is not oppressive; we can change it - if we want to.
2. I am not Big Brother, a fascist, a statist, or a sheep. I am a citizen
who wishes for peaceful change. There are things I want to change. But I
am not going to use a gun to do so.
3. Who decides if a system is oppressive? Suppose I decide a system is
oppressive and others do not agree? Does that mean I can resort to terror
tactics to impose my will on others? Then I would be a dictator, right?
4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
It follows that man can change them, if it is desired. If we wish to drop
the 2nd Amendment, we are free to do so, if a majority want it. Remember,
some people feel that it is a natural right of women to have an abortion.
Do you?
5. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, whether you like it or not.
People vote on the laws and policies and elect the officials. So why get
upset when I use the term democracy? I am calling a gun a gun.
I will end by asking people to come to their senses. A militia changes
little; it only gives people an excuse to call militiamen criminals. Form
a political party; work for peace. Merry Christmas!
dckom
On Sat, 21 Dec 96 5:18:08 GMT c.e., Ernest Austin II <eaus...@delphi.com>
wrote :
>
>Folks:
>
> Let me point a few things out:
>
some editing, for length.
>
>4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
>It follows that man can change them, if it is desired. If we wish to drop
>the 2nd Amendment, we are free to do so, if a majority want it. Remember,
>some people feel that it is a natural right of women to have an abortion.
>Do you?
Hear, hear. Our rights are what we are prepared to make them. Nothing
more, or less.
>
>5. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, whether you like it or not.
>People vote on the laws and policies and elect the officials. So why get
>upset when I use the term democracy? I am calling a gun a gun.
We do? We vote on "many" of our officials, few of our laws, and none
of the fundamental economic policies.I would guote Stephen Pearl Andrews,
the radical abolitionist,"make the pulpit, the school room, the work shop,
the manufactory, the ship yard, and the store house the universal ballot
box of the people. Make every day an election day, and every day and hour
its full and unlimited franchise". That is democracy. We have a republic.
>
>I will end by asking people to come to their senses. A militia changes
>little; it only gives people an excuse to call militiamen criminals. Form
>a political party; work for peace. Merry Christmas!
Foolish, irresponsible actions give people the excuse to do so.
A militia by itself changes little. Third, fourth,etc. political parties
change little. However, guided by the "universial ballot box", a militia is
the most democratic form of defense.
Which hopefully, would never be needed.
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IF Ruby Ridge,
Why not Pine Ridge?
Leonard Peltier Defense Committee
P.O. box 583, Lawrence, Kansas,
66044
Son of ATF
aha...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <851037542$60...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
> writes:
>
> >I do beleive the overwhelming fascination the rightwing has with guns
> >has blinded them to a large chunk of reality! The majority of Americans
> >don't own guns. X number of non-gun owners are indeed tree huggers,
> however
> >a large portion of the remainer are people who seriously take to heart
> >the biblical command:"Though shall not kill."
>
> David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible - the
> use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
> commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big difference.
Are any of you aware that this is a raging debate even among scholars of
Hebrew?
David A. Tharp
The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
aha...@aol.com
In article <851145488$11...@atype.com>, Ernest Austin II
<eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
>1. We live in a democratic system. We elect many of our officials. Our
>system is not oppressive; we can change it - if we want to.
I suggest you look again, ernie - less than 10 percent of the total
federal bureaucracy is elected - the other 90% is appointed...now, tell me
again how democratic the current system is...
>2. I am not Big Brother, a fascist, a statist, or a sheep. I am a
citizen
>who wishes for peaceful change. There are things I want to change. But
I
>am not going to use a gun to do so.
and what is your plan should your peaceful efforts fail? you've never
bothered to address this issue, as far as I can recall.
>3. Who decides if a system is oppressive? Suppose I decide a system is
>oppressive and others do not agree? Does that mean I can resort to
terror
>tactics to impose my will on others? Then I would be a dictator, right?
the body of the people decide whether a system is oppressive, that's why
we're here.
>4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
in your mind, but as you can obviously tell, we do not believe that to be
the case at all.
>It follows that man can change them, if it is desired. If we wish to
drop
>the 2nd Amendment, we are free to do so, if a majority want it.
even if there should be some move to repeal the 2A, that would not in any
way effect the natural right of self defense.
> Remember,
>some people feel that it is a natural right of women to have an abortion.
>Do you?
although this has absolutely nothing to do with 2A, as a libertarian, I
believe that every individual has the right to privacy, which means that
the government has no right to tell a person what they may or may not do
with their own body.
>5. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, whether you like it or not.
>People vote on the laws and policies and elect the officials. So why get
>upset when I use the term democracy? I am calling a gun a gun.
because as I noted above, 90 percent of the federal government is NOT
elected - in other words, you are simply believing a myth...
>I will end by asking people to come to their senses. A militia changes
>little;
you haven't demonstrated that at all, all you've shown is an inability to
deal with the situation as it currently exists.
Arlin H. Adams
aha...@aol.com
In article <851149087$11...@atype.com>, dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) writes:
>However, guided by the "universial ballot box", a militia is
>the most democratic form of defense.
>Which hopefully, would never be needed.
well said David!
Arlin
Richard Kann
Ernest Austin II wrote:
>
> Folks:
>
> Let me point a few things out:
>
> 1. We live in a democratic system. We elect many of our officials. Our
> system is not oppressive; we can change it - if we want to.
Are we talking about the 25% of the voting age people who bothered to
vote? The rest of which seem to be discouraged as the choices given us
were like picking the worst of two evils. And are we taking votescam and
ballot tampering into account. How about all the ATF, FBI, and others we
didn't vote for. Not to mention the IRS agents we didn't vote for.
What about the vote for NAFTA which calls came in 1000 to 1 against yet
our congressmen voted for it.
>
> 2. I am not Big Brother, a fascist, a statist, or a sheep. I am a citizen
> who wishes for peaceful change. There are things I want to change. But I
> am not going to use a gun to do so.
>
We are for peaceful change to. That would be the greatest thing that
could happen. However, preparing for the worst doesn't hurt anyone. Hey,
I have fire prevention equipment too, but I hop I never need it either.
> 3. Who decides if a system is oppressive? Suppose I decide a system is
> oppressive and others do not agree? Does that mean I can resort to terror
> tactics to impose my will on others? Then I would be a dictator, right?
>
I agree and we should let those ATF agents who shot the guy in New
Mexico know we won't stand for that. And also the people, who were
promoted, who shoot Randy Weaver's baby. You are right the government
shouldn't resort to terror tactics to impose their will on others. I
agree.
> 4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
Yes and man did such a wonderful job creating the universe didn't he.
> It follows that man can change them, if it is desired. If we wish to drop
> the 2nd Amendment, we are free to do so, if a majority want it.
OK. I vote we change the law of gravity. Any seconds?
Remember,
> some people feel that it is a natural right of women to have an abortion.
> Do you?
OK. So why is it a right to murder a baby and not someone older?
>
> 5. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, whether you like it or not.
> People vote on the laws and policies and elect the officials. So why
Excuse me. Which of the zillion executive orders did we have a vote on.
I must have been asleep. And when did the people vote on the assault
weapon ban. And when did we vote to raise taxes?
get
> upset when I use the term democracy? I am calling a gun a gun.
>
> I will end by asking people to come to their senses. A militia changes
> little; it only gives people an excuse to call militiamen criminals.
You mean like the changes those criminals like Washington, Adams, and
Jefferson where?
Form
> a political party; work for peace. Merry Christmas!
Ever check out the maze of laws and regulations needed to get on the
ballot bud. Then theres the mazes of courts and judges that alter those
regulations last minute so you just miss the deadlines.
> --
> ***************************************************************
> * *
> * Ernest Austin II eaus...@delphi.com *
> * Defender of Liberalism Scourge of the Right Wing *
> * Proud owner of an Amiga 2000 computer *
> * Embrace knowledge Cast out hysteria *
> * *
> ***************************************************************
Regards,
Rick
* Proud to say my guns have killed less people then Ted Kennedy's car.
* I would trust a patriot with a gun more than the average postal
worker.
* Can't wait to see the faces on those athiests come judgement day.
Jim Kleinschmit
PA Thomas (shamr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
:
: Ernest Austin II wrote:
:
: > Arlin, put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in a
: > museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
:
: : > One only has to look at the happenings in Peru to realize what 20 or
: : > so trained and determined small forces of individuals can do. Not to
: : > rationalize their political intentions but rather their resolve
: : > against what they see as tyranny. I can't help feeling that the true
: : > Patriots in this country are no less determined.
: : >
: : > Jim Kleinschmit
: : ---
: Hmmmmm.... they certainly seemed to work in the founding of this nation.
: But I suppose you would say that this was 200+ years ago...hence the
: museum comment. I also suppose that that's what you think of the
: Constituion, the DoI, and the form of government they instituted.
:
: Oh, and Arlin, keep the gun close at hand. Our nation is counting on us.
:
--
Patrick Graham
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote in article
<851178784$12...@atype.com>...
This guy says England is free. If so we would be able to ask someone
in England "What do you carry?" and he would say ".38" or ".45".
Now, back to the real world. The real answer is " Nothing" or " I can't,
it's
against the law" and if he's from occupied Northern Ireland the answer
is "I would be jailed for even thinking about it". So much for freedom in
England.
There are very few free "places" left in the world. One could say
that the 2 dozen states in the US, where the citizens are free (sort of)
to carry arms for personal protection, are the last bastions of freedom
left in the world.
What's your opinion on this?????
Patrick Graham
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <851178784$12...@atype.com>,
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
>my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
>has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
>are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
Let's be a tad more realistic. Children, for instance, are not likely to own
guns. Out of adults aged 21 to 70, let's say, how many own guns? Quite a few.
Also, England has a very low crime rate, but also a considerably less violent
culture than the United States, which I suspect would be more violent than
England even with strict gun control laws.
Mike Chapman
In article <851178784$12...@atype.com>,
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
>my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
>has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
>are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
HAHAHA, England has NO FREEDOM. Censorship is widespread. There is
really no limit to what any parliament might do. Check out their laws
on terrorism and suspected terrorists.
Dave, you are WAY off topic. I really don't give a shit what your
opinions on guns are, and they don't belong here.
If you want my guns buddy boy, come and get them. Otherwise, go the
fuck away, you're posting in the wrong place.
wu...@aol.com
In article <851145488$11...@atype.com>, Ernest Austin II
<eaus...@delphi.com> writes:
4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
There is some historical evidence in support of this. Supposedly natural
rights weren't mentioned in English jurisprudence until the few centuries
before the American revolution. I've heard the date quoted as recent as a
hundred years before. In fact, there was a period of sorting out what
were natural rights and what were statutory writes.
On the other hand, those who first wrote not only relied on reasoning but
also cited authorities way back in ancient Rome and Greece, not to mention
the Bible.
I don't know whether it's a matter of rediscovering natural rights or
creating them anew under the guise of rediscovering them. Much of
court-made law is created by "discovering" what appears to have been the
law all along.
I'll say this though. The doctrine of natural rights is AT WORST a useful
fiction. It implies that there is no justification whatsoever for
arbitrary deprivation of things human beings ought to enjoy. And even if
it is a fiction, it has the backing of positive law. It's as good as
true.
Ewen Allison
JD Candidate
Washington College of Law
American University
Walter Ulrich
> bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp) writes:
> The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
> my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
> has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
> are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
That's 70 million which in some way have >registered< firearms, sweet-cakes.
There are millions upon millions of >unregistered< firearms, plus, taking into
account that 28% of the population is under 18 and cannot legally own a
firearm, we can easily top the magical 50% point. In any event...it wouldn't
matter if only >one< person in the United States owned a firearm, the Second
Amendment still stands. If you're so enamored with the Nation of Sheep
(the United Kingdom) why don't you go there and baaa with the rest of them?
It's getting rather boring for fascists, such as yourself, to bleat about "nation
X cuts the tongues out of people who dare question the government, why
aren't we doing that here in the U.S.?" bullshit.
If "England has freedom" why have the power possessors taken away the
right of law abiding citizens to own a given tool? Doesn't compute, and
neither do you.
> David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
> :-) Bad speller, nice person :-)
You got that half right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Ulrich
> Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
> >aha...@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
> > David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible - the
> > use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
> > commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big difference.
> Are any of you aware that this is a raging debate even among scholars of
> Hebrew?
>>>>
Provide references to this "raging debate".
As the Old Testament God had a wont for >>killing<< evil doers, you don't
stand on very firm ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aha...@aol.com
In article <851178784$12...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
>my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns!
that's okay, many of us are working to change that, and we are -
recruiting new shooters all the time - since I'm one of the folks who
teaches people how to shoot, I see this almost every month.
> England has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law.
it also has no Constitutional Bill of Rights, and a very different
culture, so your comparison is invalid.
Arlin Adams
aha...@aol.com
In article <851162583$12...@atype.com>, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net>
writes:
>> David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible -
the
>> use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
>> commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big
difference.
>
>Are any of you aware that this is a raging debate even among scholars of
>Hebrew?
political correctness is the bane of scholars everywhere...
Arlin
Kaa Byington
Son of ATF wrote:
>
> aha...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <851037542$60...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
> > writes:
> >
> > >I do beleive the overwhelming fascination the rightwing has with guns
> > >has blinded them to a large chunk of reality! The majority of Americans
> > >don't own guns. X number of non-gun owners are indeed tree huggers,
> > however
> > >a large portion of the remainer are people who seriously take to heart
> > >the biblical command:"Though shall not kill."
> >
> > David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible - the
> > use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
> > commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big difference.
>
> Are any of you aware that this is a raging debate even among scholars of
> Hebrew?
Those who say the translation is "kill" instead of "murder" must be
having a tough time with what follows the ten commandments in the Bible.
For one thing, Exodus 21, 12-13 requires different punishment for
deliberately killing a man (capital punishment) than for killing a man
without intent (flee to a place to be named later.) God then seems to
have liked a lot of killing of animals--the jews were under orders not to
sacrifice the first born of all their animals to him, and not to come
into his sanctuary without an animal to sacrifice.
Son of ATF
Patrick Graham wrote:
>
> David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote in article
> <851178784$12...@atype.com>...
> >
> >
> > The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
> > my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
> > has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
> > are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
> > --
> > David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
> > :-) Bad speller, nice person :-)
> >
>
> This guy says England is free. If so we would be able to ask someone
> in England "What do you carry?" and he would say ".38" or ".45".
> Now, back to the real world. The real answer is " Nothing" or " I can't,
> it's
> against the law" and if he's from occupied Northern Ireland the answer
> is "I would be jailed for even thinking about it". So much for freedom in
> England.
>
> There are very few free "places" left in the world. One could say
> that the 2 dozen states in the US, where the citizens are free (sort of)
> to carry arms for personal protection, are the last bastions of freedom
> left in the world.
>
> What's your opinion on this?????
>
> Patrick Graham
My opinion is that a definition of freedom should resonably rely on
*more* than the firearms statutes.
Son of ATF
Walter Ulrich wrote:
>
> > Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
> > >aha...@aol.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > David, you need to check out a more current translation of the Bible - the
> > > use of the word 'kill' in the King James was a translation error - the
> > > commandment actually reads "You will not commit murder". Big difference.
>
> > Are any of you aware that this is a raging debate even among scholars of
> > Hebrew?
>
> >>>>
>
> Provide references to this "raging debate".
> Will do, but first, you should understand, that the nature of the debate
is as to the exact translation of the word and not as to either the
interpretation of the Law by the ancient Jews OR by God Himself.
> As the Old Testament God had a wont for >>killing<< evil doers, you don't
> stand on very firm ground.
> I would point out in a mostly toung-in-cheek voice, that all
totalitarians (such as God) tend to adopt a "do as I say, not do as I
do." kind of attitude.
Joseph T. Adams
David A. Tharp (bl...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
:
: The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
: my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
: has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
: are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
No one (that I know of) is claiming that the majority of Americans own
guns. Rather, they are pointing out - corectly - that the vast
majority of American HOUSEHOLDS own guns. I believe it is also true
that a majority of American adults own guns, although the official
numbers - which reflect only "legally" owned guns and therefore
understate the actual number - show only a very large minority.
As for "freedom," in the U.K., the "government" steals about half of
the national income (almost as much as here) and presumes to tell
people what they may or may not own and whether or not they may
receive health care, among several other basic necessities of life.
It also wages warfare upon a portion of its own subjects, supposedly
because they are "terrorists," but in reality because they advocate
self-determination. England is hardly the worst country in this
regard; it is neither significantly better nor significantly worse
than most other "western industrialized democracies." It is
nonetheless a totalitarian police state, different from Soviet Russia
or Nazi Germany only in degree and not in kind.
And while we are not so far gone as most other countries, we are
headed in the very same direction.
The only thing standing in the way are those 70+ million Americans with
guns.
Joe
David A. Tharp
If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the newspapers,
and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out a
civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns. BTW
the depressing election scandles of America are impossible in England because
by law the parties are restricted to what they can spend.
--
David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
Make money , not war!
Scott MacEachern
j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>As for "freedom," in the U.K., the "government" steals about half of
>the national income (almost as much as here)
That is, it collects taxes.
>and presumes to tell people what they may or may not own
Like the United States. (Child pornography? Illegal drugs?)
>and whether or not they may receive health care
Nope, everybody has a right to health care... and the dissemination of
this is quite a bit better than in the US of A. As in the USA and most
other countries, they are having problems affording everything for
everyone, and so they resort to de facto rationing -- IIRC, a number
of American states have been talking about exactly the same thing, and
my HMO does it when they try to talk me out of coming in with a sore
knee.
>It also wages warfare upon a portion of its own subjects, supposedly
>because they are "terrorists," but in reality because they advocate
>self-determination.
Give me a break. If the Brits pulled out of Northern Ireland (where
most of the people are Protestant, BTW) the whole place would go up.
> It is
>nonetheless a totalitarian police state, different from Soviet Russia
>or Nazi Germany only in degree and not in kind.
Give me _another_ break. This is one of the more dangerous aspects of
the militia movement... an inability to detect very real differences
among political systems. If you can't see the difference between a
Western democracy and a police state, you increase the chance of
bringing down the former and ending up with the latter.
Scott
---
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011
"It is the magic of nationalism to turn chance
into destiny."
Benedict Anderson, _Imagined Communities_
aha...@aol.com
In article <851298496$17...@atype.com>, Kaa Byington
<oct...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Those who say the translation is "kill" instead of "murder" must be
>having a tough time with what follows the ten commandments in the Bible.
>For one thing, Exodus 21, 12-13 requires different punishment for
>deliberately killing a man (capital punishment) than for killing a man
>without intent (flee to a place to be named later.) God then seems to
>have liked a lot of killing of animals--the jews were under orders not to
>sacrifice the first born of all their animals to him, and not to come
>into his sanctuary without an animal to sacrifice.
:-) LOL! uh, Kaa, I think you're assuming that most people have actually
read the Old Testament...
Arlin
aha...@aol.com
In article <851353383$20...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the
newspapers,
>and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out a
>civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns.
hmm, well, let's see, their press is censored under the official secrets
act, so that they can go to jail for writing letters about the wrong
things, and under the new antiterrorism legislation, anyone can be stopped
and searched at any time for no reason other than that the police decide
to search them...is that what you consider freedom david?
Arlin Adams
Mark T Pitcavage
Their libel and slander laws today are similar to what ours were near the
founding of the Republic.
Mike Chapman
In article <851246285$15...@atype.com>,
Walter Ulrich <e14...@teleport.com> wrote:
>That's 70 million which in some way have >registered< firearms, sweet-cakes.
>There are millions upon millions of >unregistered< firearms, plus, taking into
>account that 28% of the population is under 18 and cannot legally own a
>firearm, we can easily top the magical 50% point.
Exactly - consider that it's heads of households often buying guns, and
the guns are really "owned" by everyone in the house.
But as you said, what does it matter? If I'm the last civilian
in the country with a gun, I'll still kill the fuckers who try to
take it from me. This is about the basic right to self-defense
far more than the fact that our constitution protects it.
Mike Chapman
In article <851353383$20...@atype.com>,
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the newspapers,
>and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out a
>civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns. BTW
>the depressing election scandles of America are impossible in England because
>by law the parties are restricted to what they can spend.
You go live there, I'll stay here and assert my rights with guns.
Mike Chapman
On Mon, 23 Dec 96 8:18:41 GMT, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>As for "freedom," in the U.K., the "government" steals about half of
>the national income (almost as much as here) and presumes to tell
>people what they may or may not own and whether or not they may
>receive health care, among several other basic necessities of life.
Also like here, eh Joe?
>It also wages warfare upon a portion of its own subjects, supposedly
>because they are "terrorists," but in reality because they advocate
>self-determination.
Sorta like here, eh Joe?
>The only thing standing in the way are those 70+ million Americans with
>guns.
They haven't stopped jack shit yet, what's going to change? What's
the great line that will be crossed that wasn't crossed 60+ years ago?
----
Brought to you by the "Vote 7.62x51 for Real Change" Committee.
Don't stick anything through my front door you don't plan on losing.
nhoop
>...This guy says England is free. If so we would be able to ask someone
>in England "What do you carry?" and he would say ".38" or ".45".
>Now, back to the real world. The real answer is " Nothing" or " I can't,
>it's
>against the law" and if he's from occupied Northern Ireland the answer
>is "I would be jailed for even thinking about it". So much for freedom in
>England.
>Patrick Graham
Right! and when they were in imminent danger of be invaded by Germany in WW2,
they were free to train with broomsticks and beg american sportsmen for arms.
Nat
Oxford, Arkansas
Joseph T. Adams
Mike Chapman (mi...@paranoia.com) wrote:
: >The only thing standing in the way are those 70+ million Americans with
: >guns.
:
: They haven't stopped jack shit yet, what's going to change? What's
: the great line that will be crossed that wasn't crossed 60+ years ago?
People don't notice how bad things are as long as they change only
slowly, and that is exactly what has happened until recently.
When things change quickly, especially in the wrong direction, then
people do notice and become upset.
The federal government has made two fatal mistakes: (a) spending and
borrowing beyond its ability to sustain; and (b) encroaching the
rights of the People quickly rather than slowly as was usually done in
the past. It's too late for them to change either of those things,
even if they wanted to, and they show no signs of even wanting to.
That's why I'm virtually certain that it will collapse - which might
solve some of our problems, but will probably create MUCH bigger ones
in the process.
Joe
Walter Ulrich
> Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
[snip]
> My opinion is that a definition of freedom should resonably rely on
> *more* than the firearms statutes.
>>>>
Such as what?
Freedom exists when a government regards its citizens as equals,
not as potentially unrulely children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The American public does not have the knowledge to make wise
health decisions...The FDA is the arbiter of truth. Trust us, we will
tell you what is good for you." Dr. David Kessler, Chairman FDA
on Larry King Live - 1994
Ernie
Ernest Austin II <eaus...@delphi.com> wrote in article
<851145488$11...@atype.com>...
>
> Richard Kann <HUNT...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> >> Arlin:
> >>
> >> We live in a democratic system. It is open to reform; note the
many
> >> laws passed each year. We do not need a militia; the militia has done
no-
> >> thing to prevent government abuses. Besides, who decides if the
government
> >> is oppresive? A group of people who do not represent the majority?
> >> Arlin, put away the gun. Militias are useless; they should be in
a
> >> museum, next to the lorica segmentata.
>
The people do. ..When a government becomes destructive (of the people's
rights)
it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.....
>
> Folks:
>
> Let me point a few things out:
>
> 1. We live in a democratic system. We elect many of our officials. Our
> system is not oppressive; we can change it - if we want to.
No, because the current government controls access to the political arena
by controlling the press and campaign dollars. Ross Perot, P Buchanan and
others,whether you agree with them or not deserve fair access. Do you
think
a member of the patriot movement would be allowed to run? Why is the
choice always republican/democrat? Where are the whigs and other
groups? Wiped out!!
> 2. I am not Big Brother, a fascist, a statist, or a sheep. I am a
citizen
> who wishes for peaceful change. There are things I want to change. But
I
> am not going to use a gun to do so.
You are using hired guns to maintain the status quo. How many of our
own citizens must our govt kill before people like you see that they are
killing every day to maintain power?
> 3. Who decides if a system is oppressive? Suppose I decide a system is
> oppressive and others do not agree? Does that mean I can resort to
terror
> tactics to impose my will on others? Then I would be a dictator, right?
G Washington did. His movement only had the support of about 33%
and they torched and blew up buildings- including houses. Were there
no children home?
> 4. Natural rights is a myth. Our laws were created by man, not by God.
> It follows that man can change them, if it is desired. If we wish to
drop
> the 2nd Amendment, we are free to do so, if a majority want it.
Remember,
> some people feel that it is a natural right of women to have an abortion.
> Do you?
> 5. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, whether you like it or not.
> People vote on the laws and policies and elect the officials. So why get
> upset when I use the term democracy? I am calling a gun a gun.
>
> I will end by asking people to come to their senses. A militia changes
> little; it only gives people an excuse to call militiamen criminals.
Form
> a political party; work for peace. Merry Christmas!
> --
The Constitution was put in place to protect the minority from the
majority.
If it was majority rules, and they set the rules by majority vote on a
whim,
there would be no need for a Constitution, we would rule solely by opinion
poll.
--
Ernie.......
"A Government which robs Peter to pay Paul can
always count on the support of Paul"
George Bernard Shaw
Ernie
--
Ernie.......
"A Government which robs Peter to pay Paul can
always count on the support of Paul"
George Bernard Shaw
David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote in article
<851178784$12...@atype.com>...
>
>
> The NRA web page list 70 million Americans owning guns. Sooooooooo
> my original statement holds. Most Americans don't own guns! England
> has freedom & a low crime rate & a strict gun control law. These facts
> are swept under the rug by the Limbuaghites.
> --
> David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
> :-) Bad speller, nice person :-)
>
The low crime rate has less to do with gun control than with the
personality
of the English citizen. Try bumping into a Londonite in the subway.
He excuses himself. Try the same in NY. He says "Watch where
you're going, mother f**ker" Different mind set. There are still parts of
London where it isn't smart to travel alone.
Dave Cinege
In <851305713$17...@atype.com>, Son of ATF <sh...@ionet.net> writes:
>
>My opinion is that a definition of freedom should resonably rely on
>*more* than the firearms statutes.
Well it should rely on english.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 'Kill a Cop' Cinege (aka Psychopath #3) --- Super Genius at Large
"Early one morin' while making the rounds, I took a shot a cocaine and
I shot my baby down......shot her down then I went bed....an I stuck that
lovin' .44 beneath my head." George Thorogood
Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776 http://www.lp.org/
Dave Cinege
In <851353383$20...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp) writes:
>
>
>If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the newspapers,
>and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out a
>civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns. BTW
>the depressing election scandles of America are impossible in England because
>by law the parties are restricted to what they can spend.
And the government would NEVER break the law......
David A. Tharp
Appointed officials, (other than the civil service) are there by
the grace of elected officials. Both the appointed officials & the
civil service are bound by procedural rules. These rules in effect grant rights,
ie, a claim on state actions. n official not following these rules could be
sued by the leftwing ACLU or the rightwing Eagle Forum.
David A. Tharp
I don't regard a "militia" as being democratic. Notice I put brackets
around the word militia. Mr. Arlan Adams runs a privite army he calls a
militia. Unlike a real militia ie., the National Guard or the 24 state militias
Mr. Adams is not being suupervissed by an elected official on the state or local
level. Ther's 249.999,950 Americans who don't belong to Mr. Adams's militia.
I base this figure on the estimated population & Arlan's stated membership of
50.
aha...@aol.com
In article <851362408$21...@atype.com>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>In article <851359699$20...@atype.com>, <aha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>In article <851353383$20...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A.
Tharp)
>>writes:
>>
>>>If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the
>>newspapers,
>>>and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out
a
>>>civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns.
>>
>>hmm, well, let's see, their press is censored under the official secrets
>>act, so that they can go to jail for writing letters about the wrong
>>things, and under the new antiterrorism legislation, anyone can be
stopped
>>and searched at any time for no reason other than that the police decide
>>to search them...is that what you consider freedom david?
>
>Their libel and slander laws today are similar to what ours were near the
>founding of the Republic.
that's nice, Mark, but it doesn't address either of the points I made...
Arlin Adams
aha...@aol.com
In article <851617105$11...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>Appointed officials, (other than the civil service) are there by
>the grace of elected officials.
Which is a polite way of saying that most appointed postions are political
payoffs.
> Both the appointed officials & the
>civil service are bound by procedural rules.
which are extremely complex, rarely followed, and enforced only to prevent
embarassment to the organization...
Arlin Adams
aha...@aol.com
david you're getting confused again...and I *really* would appreciate it
if you'd learn to spell my name...
In article <851617983$11...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>I don't regard a "militia" as being democratic.
why not?
> Notice I put brackets
>around the word militia. Mr. Arlan Adams runs a privite army he calls a
militia.
a. I don't run anything - I coordinate...the group I belong to follows a
leadership structure which is task oriented, rather than rank oriented.
b. my group is merely one small part of the Constitutional Militias...
c. those were quotation marks, not brackets you used around the word
militia.
> Unlike a real militia ie., the National Guard or the 24 state militias
>Mr. Adams is not being suupervissed by an elected official on the state
or local
>level.
hi ho! I never said who we coordinate with at the local or state leve,
now did I David?
> Ther's 249.999,950 Americans who don't belong to Mr. Adams's militia.
>I base this figure on the estimated population & Arlan's stated
membership of
>50.
whoop! I don't recall specifying 50 people in my particular group, and
there are certainly substantially more than 50 people among the several
hundred groups which make up the Constitutional Militias...you weren't
paying attention again David...
Arlin H. Adams
David A. Tharp
Arlan Adams has dodged the issues raised by Austin & myself. Appointed
officials don't detract from the fact that we live in a Democratic Republic.
We have criminal & civil remedies for the wrong doing of the public officials
wether they be elected or appointed. Our jails are full of larcenous officials
(some republican, some democratic) who abused the public trust. The Liberal
Washington Post has won awards exposing the dickheads!
wu...@aol.com
In article <851370493$21...@atype.com>, mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
writes:
>
>In article <851353383$20...@atype.com>,
>David A. Tharp <bl...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>>If the people of England can vote, write snotty letters to the
newspapers,
>>and receive a fair trial I would say that the powers to be fiqured out a
>>civil society is possible without the widespread ownership of guns. BTW
>>the depressing election scandles of America are impossible in England
>because
>>by law the parties are restricted to what they can spend.
>
>You go live there, I'll stay here and assert my rights with guns.
Oh yes? I daresay you spend more time and energy exercising the rights of
free speech and free press.
Ewen Allison
JD Candidate
Washington College of Law
American University
aha...@aol.com
In article <851785389$75...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
>Arlan Adams has dodged the issues raised by Austin & myself.
uh, david, you're still spelling my name wrong, and you still aren't
providing cites to support your statements.
> Appointed officials don't detract from the fact that we live in a
Democratic Republic.
again, you have totally failed to address the fact that 90 percent of the
federal bureaucracy is NOT elected, and therefore non-democratic in
nature...
>We have criminal & civil remedies for the wrong doing of the public
officials
>wether they be elected or appointed.
oh, and what percentage of the enforcement is even attempted, much less
successful?
>Our jails are full of larcenous officials
>(some republican, some democratic) who abused the public trust.
LOL! very few of them ever go to jail, and when they do, they generally
go to a 'country club' type federal facillity ...the last one that
actually did hard time was Gordon Liddy...
> The Liberal
>Washington Post has won awards exposing the dickheads!
ROFLMAO! is that why they refused to ask the clintons about their
whitewater dealings for the FIRST THREE YEARS they were in office...in
fact until long after they had been repeatedly embarassed by the
Washington Times scooping them on the Whitewater debacle? my what an
interesting version of history you have there, david...
Arlin H. Adams
David A. Tharp
I wasn't trying to establish a cause & effect relationship between
gun control & a low crime rate. My more modest objective was to show it
was possible for a gun control country to have a low crime rate. BTW the
same goes for a free country & gun control. Americans packing heat isn't the
real reason we're a free country.
aha...@aol.com
In article <851958183$12...@atype.com>, bl...@yfn.ysu.edu (David A. Tharp)
writes:
> My more modest objective was to show it
>was possible for a gun control country to have a low crime rate.
why certainly - one can have a low crime rate whenever one is willing to
surrender one's civil rights...
>BTW the same goes for a free country & gun control.
you haven't demonstrated *that* at all.
> Americans packing heat isn't the real reason we're a free country.
you haven't demonstrated *that* either...
Arlin Adams
David Fox
To me, gun control is indirectly proportional to crime rate. This is
why police stations are never robbed...because everyone is armed. Now
lets say that everyone in a bank is armed, and everyone knows this. Then
the chances of robbery would be cut. Besides, lets face it, the
criminals will still be able to get guns. Right now, I can go and get
hemp, coke, acid, anything...and these drugs have been illeagal for
decades! Also, we banned Korea from getting nukes, but they gottem
anywys! So, this proves that the banishment oof firearms in public hands
will not work, just worsen the problem with crime. The answer to the
problem is simple: keep the firearms from the criminals by putting them
in jail and having them serve their entire sentence. And when I mean
"serve", I mean manual labor...not basketball courts, pingpong tables,
cable TV, and shit like this. Hell, I don't have half that stuff.