Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
abrasivesaint

Mass Public Shootings

Recommended Posts

There are many reasons a person chooses to own guns. I’ll acknowledge there are many reasons an individuals might choose to not own any. I can respect a person choice either way as I believe it’s theirs to make.

 

Only becomes an issue when someone imposes their will on another, which in itself is ultimately why I chose to own firearms, as well as know how to effectively use them. Certainly is no guarantee (nothing really is), but again... It goes further to equalize a great many situations. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

Most tools and insurance work like that. Owning a tool doesn’t guarantee you can fix something if it breaks. Having insurance doesn’t mean you’ll remedy what it covers. But at least it gives you a chance you might not otherwise have, in a situation where you might not get another. 

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Both sides of the gun control debate are flawed, but one side is almost %100 emotionally driven. Having a consistent overall approach to how this relates to other matters, and logical consistency doesn't matter. Some of my daily tasks are focused on writing software governing life safety systems in skyscrapers, deciding what happens if a fire or other threat is detected, what fan units to shut down, or utilize minimizing smoke penetration, damge, where and when to evacuate a floor, automatically seizing control over the elevators and other building equipment. One similarity I find when it comes to legal code, is that the rules governing how things should work, need to always work together flawlessly as opposed to interfering with/conflicting each other. Lives depend on logical consistency in both arenas, but it's only applied in one.

 

For example, the same stores that are banning guns & ammo are still choosing to sell tobacco products. In comparison to firearm deaths, there are over 150,000 slow, agonizing painful deaths per year in the US from tobacco. Many of the deaths are innocent non-smokers that were "assaulted" by the careless 2nd hand smoke from others. Every day, somebody is leaving a loved one's, or a strangers DNA permanently damaged in major internal organs as a result. Cigars are just scarier looking assault cigarettes. Tobacco deaths are particularly painful, some would argue even more emotionally, and financially damaging. Lung cancer often times costing half a million or more in chemo/radiation treatments which most of the time just prolongs the painful process of dying.

 

To be clear, by pointing this discrepancy in approach out, I'm not advocating for an expanded drug war against tobacco too, or even for taxing/regulating tobacco. I'm only illustrating the clear lack of logical consistency we're all too accustomed to making. Practically banning the most effective form of personal self defense ever known to man requires a certain type of ignorance, and possibly even arrogance. "The help will take care of it" approach here provides a false sense of complacency. This will not reduce the overall human capacity for violence, or eliminate the chances of a one person killing spree just by making a single method somewhat more difficult to achieve. When properly examined in the broader perspective, this line of thinking is unreasonable, irrational, reactionary, and in most cases knowingly fallacious by those promoting it the loudest, who most likely already have access to their own hired guns at their disposal.

 

In my opinion any reduction in harm can, and should be approached using methods that reduce overall human violence period. Focusing on a specific symptom of this societal sickness, while knowingly causing harm in other areas as a side effect is liken to a medieval doctors performed bloodlettings, and unnecessary amputations. Sure, when focused on individually, a specific instance/symptom of human violence can be reduced using this method, especially well if you're willing to use knowingly harmful, and intrusive methods. That does not mean you're treating the actual disease.

 

Serious question, why even stop at guns? We could also be banning knives, baseball bats, fists, just straight up going full bore against 2A and removing our literal arms from the shoulder down at birth just incase. What about kicks, and stomps though? Damn, how will we prevent headbuts, or are you one of those assholes that doesn't care about headbutting deaths and just selfishly want to hold onto your own head? Where do we draw the line and re-establish some sort of logical consistency and why? Here's a hint, no other conventional, popular school of thought outside of voluntaryism has a logically consistent answer that can be applied consistently across the board.

 

This idea, and having to construct arguments against it must annoy most of you, but at least it's not the same bullshit gun control argument you're used to hearing,  and regurgitated repeatedly. So at least I've got that going for me, which is nice. IMO the popular approaches to this topic are dead ends, and still rooted in the physiological remnants of biblical law, and how they're presented as separate, seemingly unrelated rules. No need for any explanation on why all the rules don't exactly fit together, never question the legitimacy of your government, or your deity's wisdom if you know what's good for you.

 

Meanwhile, the simplicity of the non-aggression principal fit's into my logical, cold, mathematical mindset perfectly without conflicts. Partially due to the growing importance of, and influence of programmers like myself in society this philosophy we're prone to  is spreading through methods much like the one I'm exercising now. IMO the NAP should be the only core rule defining the acceptability of individual human actions. One simply cannot aggress against another's person, or property, period. Every other law should just define, and interpret that core principal consistently into individual real world application. Somehow were still stuck in this archaic view all but guaranteeing multiple unrelated, and conflicting laws. Stuck not advancing any further not realizing we're on a dead end.

 

Judge this with caution. Adherence to your time's popular political opinions is foolishness, and demonstrates both a lack of historical literacy, and self awareness. Look back on the philosophies popular during the pre-enlightenment era, and how narrow minded they seem now. We may not know for sure what's going to be considered appropriate a few generations from now if society actually advances. One thing is for sure: It sure as fuck isn't going to resemble the popular opinions of our time. The only sure about being a line towing democrat, or republican is you're going to be cool now, and a bad joke 100 years from now like some loser that peaked in 8th grade. My "lone wolf" approach may be unconventional, and unpopular, but it sure as fuck beats being part of the herd.

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, meant to respond to this and didn't have time on the last page so here goes:

On 9/5/2019 at 7:23 AM, Hua Guofang said:

By that logic, there's no need for arms even at a state level.

 

I don't get your meaning.

I was referencing your assertion that the inferior force (in this case civilians) shouldn't bother arming themselves, specifically because they're a far  inferior force. By that logic there's no value in assembling the weakest military in the world, you can't beat anyone. So what of the next weakest one above it, it's practically useless unless you're the strongest right? No, obviously there's good reasons, one of the main ones is deterrence.

 

Quote

The afghans have certainly defeated Russia. However, you misunderstand what America's priority objective was: denying international terror organisations the ability to launch attacks against US interests using Astan as a base. The rest was mission creep.

Well then we failed, because I'd say there's been a spike in Americans blown up by people using Afgan as a forward operating base the moment we stepped foot in that shithole. 

 

 

 

 

We're still getting blown up till this day. Regardless of how you score the objective my original point remains, once we leave they're objective of driving us out has been met, and our objective in your own words will no longer be "met" even though I dispute it's ever been met because I value an American life just as much in, or out of a uniform.

 

Quote

The point with Astan is though, that they were not an armed populace, the way you prescribe, when invaded by Russia. Their weapons and training came from the US, Pakistan, KSA, and the Muslim Ummah. The enemy that the US is fighting now is not so much an armed populace that is uprising but a standing army using guerilla tactics.

Disagree, they use a decentralized model of command and control when compared to Most modern armies. At best, it's about as coordinated as what the civilians could put together here. The term insurgent, enemy combatant, and even terrorist is subjective, and loosely based on the person's affiliations describing those taking part in irregular warfare.

 

Quote

Yes, the population is armed, but many are enemies of the US, many are neutral and many are fighting alongside the US. The key points are that the enemy the US faces was armed, trained and organised decades before the US invaded and they are supported by states in their resistance to the US. It does not even resemble the model you propose.

You're bending over backwards to define them as non civilian then concede it's complicated. For what it's worth a good bit of our civilian population has been  professionally trained themselves, and some haven't. None of it really means shit if they're not armed and the military is defeated, or turns on their own civilian population.

 

Quote

Of course, and that's why we have a standing force of air, sea and land-based services.

Sounds like a brag to me. I noticed you didn't mention a space force yet and that's a shame. I know space forces when I see them, and I gotta be honest, ours is by far the best in the world, I'm talking big league, possibly even the best in space.

 

image.png.91bedc4c7f39a09c805f25267acd8564.png

 

Had to shake it up with some humor, please forgive.

 

Quote

A defence force isn't only about deterring or defeating an invasion either, that is the ultimate reason.

Same with civilian gun ownership but yes, please continue. 

 

Quote

You also have them to help shape the global environment (you know, by invading other countries on faulty intelligence for bullshit reasons only to kill heaps of people and aid a fucked up regime like the Iranian theocracy.....), adding credibility and threat to your diplomacy, keeping international waterways safe and open for trade, protecting overseas investment/citizens and retrieving them from harm, securing your immediate environment when states fail on your doorstep, humanitarian assistance and disaster response, aid to the civil power in times of crisis such as natural disaster, etc. etc.

Our civilians haven't accomplished anything on this scale without using the military since civilians got together after the Alamo and stole Texas from Mexico. As civilians we're still well armed, I think we'd be able to repel most of the worlds smaller professional  armies during a prolonged occupation, without really needing the military's help. I'm that confident.

 

Quote

Australia has no clear enemy in terms of a country that will apply sustained force on the continent. Indonesia, 250m pop. with a huge army is on our doorstep but is the largest archipelagic nation, which creates huge internal stresses and costs - it struggles to keep its own nation under control (see secession of Timor Leste in 1999, the insurgency in Aceh, the current uprising in West Papua, etc.) and they don't even have the logistical capability to move their troops around their own country let alone send an invasion force over the seas. I think the closest country with the logistics required is Singapore, which hasn't the capacity in terms of manpower or economy to consider an invasion and occupation. The US and Japan are realistically the nations with the potential to invade Australia, but we're all treaty allies so we cool.

It's sad you don't see the parallel between Chinas recent boom, with Japans own meteoric rise from poverty, with the following generation orchestrating the rape of Nanjing. I'm not saying it's probable, but that's far more likely IMO than the US or Japan deciding to one day.

 

Quote

Change happens a lot slower than 'almost instant', though. Look at the lead up for both wars in Iraq. Huge amount of political discussion before forces are mobilised, transferred to staging bases, etc. etc. Full-scale invasions across oceans are monufuckingmental efforts and the counties with that kind of capability watch each other like hawks for any sign - political, diplomatic, physical, etc. - that this could be happening. To develop forces capable of doing big things - such as China creating a force capable of invading Australia - literally takes generations.

Ok but what does this have to do with anything?  Are you suggesting that at the first sign of  conflict Australia's gun laws automatically dissolve, and guns magically become availiable again in the weeks/moths leading up to a potential conflict? Pointless point.

 

Quote

For example, China decided in the 1980s that it wanted to break out of the first island chain and that would require a capability to defeat US aircraft carriers, to unify with Taiwan, to detect and defeat US subs that would block access through maritime bottlenecks and for China to have aircraft carriers of their own. that was close to 40 years ago. Since then China has developed a missile that might threaten US carriers, a sub fleet that is renowned for being the noisiest and most detectable in the business and they've bought a decommissioned carrier from Ukraine, which has been refitted as a training vessel. That's it - 40 YEARS!

Smart on their part, you're overlooking the fact that aircraft carriers (outside of the expense) are an almost centuries old  tech. Moving forward I'd fear the country capable of building thousands of the worlds best drones, the best telecommunications equipment etc. Even the best technology in the world is considered the best in the world, until it isn't anymore. You may have a good perspective regarding the next 5, maybe 10 years but what after that, are you so sure the dynamic won't change in the decades to come after that?

 

Quote

Developing workable strategic platforms like carriers, subs, Gen5 aircraft, ICBMs, etc. take decades, developing doctrine takes generations and combat experience (which China hasn't had since a small land skirmish with Vietnam and India in the 60/70s), developing training regimes takes generations, etc. etc. You also have to have a rotation of forces. To have one SSBN constantly deployed at sea for nuclear survivability, you need 3-4 subs (one on operation, one on rest/leave, one in maintenance and if you can afford it, one getting the latest upgrades). The same goes for any operation - for any vessel you have a sea you must have two in the docks. For every soldier deployed in theatre you have to have two in barracks and another in training.

Agreed.

Quote

Developing a global force takes generation upon generation.

Beg to differ, it didn't take decades for the Japanese to develop modern aircraft carrier groups. They started late 20's at best, arguably early 30's so about a decade before they launched pearl harbor. 

 

Quote

Developing the capability to capably project force long distances for sustained periods takes time and doesn't go unnoticed. IF country A is doing this, country BCDEF..... are all responding by beefing up to deter, disrupt and defeat. This is exactly what is happening now in the Idno-Pacific, and has been since the 1990s because of Chinese behaviour. 

My point was more about illustrating it's possible, not probable, and how that probability can be deterred even further by simply allowing a heavily armed civilian population. 

 

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mercernot meaning to be rude but I think some of this is getting a bit beyond reasonable, and I point towards the first para you wrote. The logic of a standing army with strategic weapons platforms and professional soldiers already deployed to bases does not immediately equate to the logic of having an untrained and unorganised but armed civilian populace. I'm pretty much done on that discussion if you can't recognise the differences here.

 

Secondly, you can disagree all you want with what has been occurring in Afghan/Pakistan since 2001. But you're going against basically every single person who works on that issue - they were a standing army until the US invaded, instead of fighting a superior force head on they melted into the populace and use guerilla tactics, aided/trained/supported by element of the ISI and military in Paks. These are hard facts, mate, you can deny them all you want but it won't stop them from being 100% fact.

 

The US definitely has not succeeded in Astan, I'm not arguing that point. I was just trying to notion toward the fact that you're not really squared away with the fundamental facts of the issue and that you're a bit off the cuff on this one.

 

Regards China's boom resembling Japan's expansionism, you don't seem to grasp the complexity of the differences and that about 100 years makes a big difference. But, far be it from me to be convincing, here take the word of the guy, who until very recently, headed up Australia's foreign affairs, international trade and international intelligence operations: https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/australia-the-united-states-and-the-indo-pacific-keynote-address-delivered-by-peter-varghese-ao

 

For China strategic predominance is a return to the Middle Kingdom. It hopes to get there not by invasion or territorial expansion but by exercising economic leverage. China seeks a pre-emptive surrender to its interests.

 

China also seems to be moving away from economic reform and giving the market a larger role in the allocation of resources. It has benefited from an open trading system but does not offer equivalent access to its own market. Party control reaches into all aspects of the economy. Covert interference in the politics of regional countries has risen. Cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated.

 

more and more individual ASEAN nations are being pulled into China’s orbit: not with enthusiasm or conviction but because they see that the economic cost of opposing China’s agenda is too high. Even Vietnam, which has a long and fraught history with China, will be constrained in how far it can go in lending support to balancing China.

 

History may rhyme - as in China definitely wants to be #1 in the Indo-PAcific, but history doesn't repeat because times, technology and knowledge changes and evolves.

 

I'm not overlooking the facts about modern tech and how it influences conflict, thanks. I'm merely pointing out that what you've argued points out that you don't know where to start when it comes to risk analysis and power projection - that it begins with logistics and intent. And as to your point about aircraft carriers and JApan, yeah, sure, the US did the same thing. But they also lost numerous aircraft and personnel every week as they were developing in a race to get there first because everyone knew war was coming. Do you see that happening today? Secondly, you seem to completely and totally ignore the fact that China has already taken two generations since making the decision to become a carrier capable nation and it still cannot field even a single carrier group in battle. Facts are facts, mate. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

 

 

To your last point: My point was more about illustrating it's possible, not probable, and how that probability can be deterred even further by simply allowing a heavily armed civilian population. 

 

Nations don't develop policies and strategies on what is possible, otherwise we would be arming ourselves against alien invasion and the zombie apocalypse. There are finite resources for defence so we go for what is plausible and most likely (with a mix of consequence, so yes, we do consider what would happen if China wanted to attack us in 30 years, that's why we're investing in lots of subs, Gen5 aircraft and ASW because that's how you deter them, you make it impossible for them to even get here).

 

To end my part in this discussion, yes, a significant part of your population is now trained due to the wars the US has fought over the last 20 years. That is a real strategic benefit for the nation in terms of defence, no denying that at all. It becomes akin to swarm warfare, in that you have numerous capable and autonomous actors attacking without pattern or concentration. The historical example is a battle from WWII made famous in the movie a bridge too far, where a para drop missed the DZ and spread the units all over the place. They achieved their objective acting autonomously but they were well trained, well equipped with weapon platforms that could interact, they had a command structure that meant whey they met up they interacted seamlessly (also because they had the same training) and they all knew what the primary, secondary and tertiary objectives where as well as where the enemy positions were and what their goals were. None of this exists when you just have a bunch of folk with guns.

 

An armed, unorganised and untrained populace complicates the picture but it offers opportunities for an invading force just as it creates risks. That's why countries like Sweden and Israel don't just give out guns, they have national service to provide training and to organise their population into an effective fighting force.

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 2:29 PM, misteraven said:

Never moved goal posts as I never stated that fear of genocide was my justification to be armed. In fact, I’ve mostly stated I need no justification as an American as it’s guaranteed.

 

Sort of surprised you need me to provide examples of implantation of gun control that later was followed by genocide. Maybe a better question to ask is an example of genocide in the modern era that wasn’t preceded by genocide. 

 

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

 

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

 

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

 

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

 

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

 

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

 

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

 

In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control. 

So I've run out of time to do the proper research on this as I'm back to work tomorrow after being on leave for the last couple of weeks (hence my power posting).

 

However, @misteravenyou need to be more critical of your sources. So much of this utter and complete fiction.

 

#1 - The China thing is, well, I have no words. Japan invaded China in 1937, previous to that there had been great upheaval and warlordism, The US, UK, Germany, JApan, etc. had taken concessions all throughout China as colonial powers and the writ of the govt in Beijing did not reach the borders of the country, which were fluctuating in this time as well. The Russians were sending weapons in and training the commies whilst the US was sending weapons and training to the republicans whilst Japan was invading the country. Once the Japs lost the war the commies came in and took the JApanese weapons and territory behind the Russians in the north and pushed the republican forces off into Taiwan, which started the current stand off between Taiwan and the mainland and the one China policy. 

 

Part of the take-over of the commies was destroying the bourgeoisie, who were never actually armed in the first place. There were some gun laws made in the early 1900s but there were multiple govts and conflicts throughout the country before the commies came to power in 1949. The govt definitely has a strict guns policy in the country and a big reason of that is to monopolise force, but, a) there was no disarming prior to genocide (there's been no genocide at all) and even people who control power (Zhou Yongkang who commanded over 1million armed paramilitaries was put in prison a couple of years ago, the PAPs couldn't save him) are put in prison for political purposes without their forces being disarmed. Finally, even if every protester in Tiananmen Square in 1989 were armed with guns it wouldn't have meant shit. The PLA came in with tanks and outnumber them by thousands to a man. The same with many of the dissidents that still get imprisoned today, they are individuals, not an organised group. Individuals with rifles are nothing against the PSB, PAP and PLA. It's fantasy that arming these individuals would make a lick of difference. The vast majority of the country support the govt because they don't know any better.

 

The China example cited here is a complete fabrication with zero fact behind it.

 

 

#2 the Armenian genocide began in the late 1800s with hundreds of thousands massacred by Muslim Turkish troops. The 'genocide' that is often referred to is actually the start of the death marches, etc. But that was not the start of the exterminations and mass killings, that was in the previous century much prior to the law referred to up there. The Young Turks definitely disarmed the soldiers that were fighting in WWI and fought against the Armenians that sided with the Russians. But that was many years after the mass killings began, gun control did no precede the genocide.

 

 

#3 - The French largely disarmed the Cambodians prior to 53. I'm not sure why that year was given as the date but it's the year of independence from French colonial rule. Between 53 and the coming of the Khmer Rouge there was a whole civil war that went for years, an invasion, the Vietnam war next door, etc. etc. Any kind of gun control enacted in '53 would have been rendered completely irrelevant by the time the KR took the capital by force. Not to say that they KR didn't disarm people after that but it's also HIGHLY unlikely that the educated classes they killed were even armed in the first place.

 

 

I'm not saying that there are no examples of target populations being disarmed before being taken out, but in these three examples above, what you've copy pasted is absolute gibberish. I just chose three examples that I'm aware of, I'm not sure about the rest. But I'd suggest you be skeptical of the rest of the info too.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm back at work tomorrow so I'm bowing out from here on in. I love shooting, I like guns and I can certainly understand why people would want them and need them for many reasons. However, I see both sides of the debate making up (or at least believing convenient) crap to suit their argument. Hugely complex issues are simplified to suit a bias and simple issues are complicated to avoid inconvenient truths - on both sides.

 

.

Edited by Hua Guofang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the idea of militias interesting and how in some countries they have become organised crime groups over generations and in other countries, such as the US, they are very ideologically focused.

 

I don't know the author at all and I find it strange that this is the only thing I can find of his on the internet - make of that what you will. But the website has a lot of credible people publishing there and involved with editing, so I trust it. However, I also don't like how the author doesn't define what a RW militia is and how it differs from a stock-standard militia.

 

I'd like to know if there are many militias in the US that exist for non-ideological reasons and just provide security, uphold the law of the land (cue constitutional arguments...), etc.

 

 

Assessment of Right-Wing Militia Extremism in the United States

T.S. Whitman is a writer from St. Louis, Missouri.  Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.


Title:  Assessment of Right-Wing Militia Extremism in the United States

Date Originally Written:  July 5, 2019.

Date Originally Published:  October 7, 2019.

 

Summary:  Due to increased levels of militia activity and right-wing extremism, individuals radicalized on the far right-end of the political spectrum remain an awkward elephant in the room for policymakers. Despite a clear threat from right-wing extremists, an effective response is often limited by political posturing and pressure.

 

Text:  The rise of alt-right ideology, availability of firearms, and increased militia membership over the past decade creates a unique problem for policymakers. Setting aside the unlikely, worst-case scenario of whole-scale rebellion, even a single militia can pose a threat that exceeds the operational capacity of law enforcement personnel. There is no easy way to address this issue, as even openly discussing it probes sensitivities and fuels political resentment.

 

The ascent of militias has not occurred in a vacuum. It can be attributed to a sharp increase in political polarization over the past two decades, particularly after the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. This widening gap in ideology and values has led to rising animosity between Americans. Nearly 1-in-5 Americans believe that many members of the opposite party “lack the traits to be considered fully human”; and 13% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats believe that violence would be justified in response to an electoral loss in 2020[1]. Despite high-levels of animus from both sides of the political spectrum, right-wing violence represents an increasing share of terrorist activity. The slice of terrorist violence by right-wing extremists increased from 6% of attacks in 2010 to 35% by 2016, while left-wing terrorist violence during the same period dropped from 64% of attacks to just 12%[2]. Furthermore, right-wing violence quadrupled between 2016 and 2017[3]. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes, “Although violent left-wing groups and individuals also present a threat, far-right-networks appear to be better armed and larger[4].” Many acts or plots of right-wing violence have involved militia members[5].

 

Some militia groups are conducting so-called “operations.” One frequent spot for militia activity is the U.S.-Mexican border, where one militia recently detained several hundred immigrants illegally crossing the border[6]. Meanwhile, over the past decade, there have been a number of prominent incidents involving right-wing militia members. In 2014, following what had been two decades of legal disputes between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Cliven Bundy over grazing fees, the BLM moved to confiscate Bundy’s cattle. What followed was a tense standoff between Bundy’s armed supporters, many of whom had militia ties, and BLM agents. Out of fear of armed violence, the BLM caved and returned Bundy’s livestock[7]. In 2016, Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, led a group of armed protestors affiliated with militias and the sovereign citizen movement to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Oregon, in response to federal charges against two farmers, Stephen and Dwight Hammond. By the time the standoff ended, one armed occupier was dead and 27 more were arrested and charged. In June, 2019, after eleven Oregon Republican state Senators refused to attend a legislative session for a cap-and-trade bill, Governor Kate Brown ordered state police to apprehend and bring them to the state capitol for a vote on the bill. All eleven Senators went on the run. During a television interview, Senator Brian Boquist (R) said, “Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon.” They received support from militia groups in Oregon and Idaho, the former of which was involved in the aforementioned Bundy Ranch and Malheur National Wildlife Reserve standoffs. According to Real Three Percenters Idaho militia leader Eric Parker, “We’re doing what we can to make sure that they’re safe and comfortable.” He added that his group was communicating with the Oregon Three Percenters militia about the Senators. One militiaman with the Oregon Three Percenters wrote on Facebook that his militia “vowed to provide security, transportation and refuge for those Senators in need[8].” The crisis ended after an agreement between Republican and Democratic leadership was reached to kill the cap-and-trade bill.

 

Attempted or fulfilled acts of political violence and terrorism by domestic extremists, though often bloody, have overwhelmingly been perpetrated by an individual or small cells. In almost every case, law enforcement officers have been able to preempt, apprehend, or kill the responsible parties. However, the size, organization, and armament of many right-wing militias gives the government cause for concern. Based upon the result of the 2014 Bundy standoff and the disastrous outcome of the 1993 Waco siege, it stands to reason that even a small militia of 100 armed personnel would require U.S. military capabilities to suppress[9]. However, the contemporary history of domestic military operations is fraught with confusion. For instance, during the L.A. Riots in 1992, Joint Task Force-Los Angeles lacked legal experts in Chapter 15, Title 10, Sections 331-334, and military lawyers were initially confused by the Posse Comitatus Act[10].

 

Discussing right-wing extremism requires delicacy and nuance, but will remain an inflammatory topic regardless of how it is addressed. In attempt to position itself to respond to right-wing domestic terrorism and political violence, the government has faced allegations of political bias. The earliest assessment of right-wing extremism under the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) came under severe scrutiny for anti-conservatism and was subsequently retracted. According to Daryl Johnson, a career intelligence analyst and author of the report, the political fallout led to the end of “work related to violent right-wing extremism[11].” It was reported by The Daily Beast in April 2019 that the DHS had disbanded its domestic terrorism intelligence unit. Some officials have anonymously alleged that there has been a sharp reduction in the number of domestic terrorism assessments as a result[12].

 

Despite the challenge of addressing right-wing militia extremism, the average American is unlikely to ever be killed or injured by one. The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack, committed by a right-wing extremist or otherwise, are 1 in 3,269,897[13]. More concerning is the threat posed by insurrection, even if it is isolated and not widespread. Keith Mines, a veteran Special Forces officer and diplomat, estimated a 60% chance that America would experience “violence that requires the National Guard to deal with[14].” Ignoring this possibility will only place America at a disadvantage if an extreme militia group collectively turns to violence.


Endnotes:

[1] Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2019, January). pp. 17-24. Lethal Mass Partisanship: Prevalence, Correlates, and Electoral Contingencies (pp. 1-41). Retrieved April 09, 2019, from https://www.dannyhayes.org/uploads/6/9/8/5/69858539/kalmoe___mason_ncapsa_2019_-_lethal_partisanship_-_final_lmedit.pdf

[2] Ideological Motivations of Terrorism in the United States, 1970-2016 (Rep.). (2017, November). Retrieved April 10, 2019, from University of Maryland website: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf

[3] Clark, S. (2019, March 07). Confronting the Domestic Right-Wing Terror Threat. Center for American Progress. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2019/03/07/467022/confronting-domestic-right-wing-terrorist-threat/

[4] Jones, S. G. (2018, November 07). The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States. Retrieved July 08, 2019, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states

[5] Goldman, A. (2019, June 04). F.B.I., Pushing to Stop Domestic Terrorists, Grapples With Limits on Its Power. Retrieved July 08, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/fbi-domestic-terrorism.html

[6] Hernandez, S. (2019, April 19). A Militia Group Detained Hundreds Of Migrants At Gunpoint At The Border. Retrieved July 05, 2019, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/militia-group-border-migrants-detain-united-constitutional

[7] Prokop, A. (2015, May 14). The 2014 controversy over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, explained. Retrieved April 11, 2019, from https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/18080508/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-explained

[8] Sommer, W. (2019, June 21). Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/armed-militias-pledge-to-fight-for-fugitive-oregon-gop-lawmakers-at-any-cost

[9] Matthews, M. (2012, February 07). Chapter 4: The 1992 Los Angeles Riots and the Posse Comitatus Act. In The Posse Comitatus Act and the United States Army: A Historical Perspective. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/matthews.pdf

[10] Matthews, M. (2012, February 07). Chapter 6: Conclusions. In The Posse Comitatus Act and the United States Army: A Historical Perspective. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/matthews.pdf

[11] Johnson, D. (2017, August 21). I Warned of Right-Wing Violence in 2009. Republicans Objected. I Was Right. Washington Post. Retrieved April 09, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/21/i-warned-of-right-wing-violence-in-2009-it-caused-an-uproar-i-was-right/

[12] Woodruff, B. (2019, April 02). Exclusive: Homeland Security Disbands Domestic Terror Intelligence Unit. The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 11, 2019, from https://www.thedailybeast.com/homeland-security-disbands-domestic-terror-intelligence-unit

[13] Nowrasteh, A. (2018, March 08). More Americans Die in Animal Attacks than in Terrorist Attacks. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.cato.org/blog/more-americans-die-animal-attacks-terrorist-attacks

[14] Ricks, T. E. (2017, March 10). Will we have a civil war? A SF officer turned diplomat estimates chances at 60 percent. Foreign Policy. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/10/will-we-have-a-civil-war-a-sf-officer-turned-diplomat-estimates-chances-at-60-percent/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

such as the US, they are very ideologically focused

You are either incorrect or perhaps didn't articulate your statement properly.

 

The militia in the USA is very specifically, as well as legally defined. Right Wing Militia is a misnomer that the mainstream media loves to throw out there. I'll also don my tinfoil hat by saying its in the governments best interest to destroy the meaning of the word for the purposes of destroying the concept of what it represents since it's the largest threat to established political power, which is the precise reason it was created.

 

The term "Militia" is a legal definition. It's origins are in pre revolutionary American history and was later also expanded under the Militia Acts of 1792 and again later in 1903, which expanded the concept from its original intent of being all able bodied men between the ages of 16 and 50, as well as describing a very specific state of readiness.

 

 

Here's a related quote by George Mason, a founding father and the man generally regarded as the author of the US Constitution...

 

Quote

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason

 

 

 

I've posted this before, but for easy reference will drop this again as its the best definition, as well as interpretation of Militia as it provides context that can be easily understood, as well as easily verified.

 

------------

2A - The Question:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

We talk about the “right of the people” to “bear arms” all the time. But we don’t often talk about the “well regulated militia” part that precedes it. So, what is it about? Is this militia still relevant to us today? Can we just ignore it? If unnecessary, does the lack of a need for the militia make the whole Second Amendment null and void?

Background:

Our founders had just fought a war with one of the greatest powers in the world. In the mid 1780s, British forces were considered the best of the best. But our founders hadn’t joined a war with a “foreign power.” They had fought a war with their own government in order to separate from it and start anew. This was because we Americans felt England had violated our very rights as Englishmen.

As our Declaration of Independence notes:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

As far as we were concerned, our English governors had begun a systematic attempt to change our rules for “light and transient causes.” That same British government was also using the force of arms to compel us to observe her wicked rule.

The founders also were experts on history and in their deliberations let history be their guide. By their reading of history governments used the force of arms held by their standing armies to oppress the people far more often than they ever did for benevolent ends.

To prevent that penchant for tyranny the founders came up with a novel idea. Instead of having a large, standing army, they’d rely on an armed populace organized in para-military organizations generally under the auspices of the state governments and not the federal. That way, the federal government can’t usurp undue power as the states and the people themselves would be able to stop such a thing.

But, the Second Amendment was also written to prevent the states from turning tyrannical. After all, the amendment centers its attention on both “the militia” and “the people” not the state or government. The rights are conferred on the individual militia members (not the state) and the people (again, not the state).

So, who is the “militia”? None other than we, the people.

That was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid.

What the Left Says:

When the left tries to address the clause at all–and they don’t often bother with it–they find the whole idea of a militia to be a useless artifact.

The left scoffs at the idea that our current standing army might be turned against us. The militia is now unnecessary and that, they say, makes the whole Second Amendment null and void. As a writer on Alternet says, “the entire legitimate rationale for the 2nd Amendment has been obliterated.”

So, the left claims that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for “the security of a free state.”

Another argument the left pursues is that the founders just couldn’t understand that technology would advance until we’d have machine guns that can cut down dozens of men in seconds. The founders only had muskets that took “twenty minutes to load.” This technological blindness also makes the Second Amendment null and void.

There is also some focus on the “regulated” part. The left expects that “regulated” is a means to impose regulations (i.e. rules, laws) on the militia.

Some want to use the “well regulated” part of the Amendment to serve their gun-banning ways, as well. One argument goes that until there is a properly, “regulated” militia created, then guns can obviously be taken away from people until and if said militia is organized and put into operation. In fact, this argument goes that if there is a militia that isn’t “regulated,” then it is actually a threat to the nation. Once again, they say this is proof that guns must be taken away from Americans.

For decades, the left has argued that if guns are at all guaranteed for Americans it is a “collective right” not an individual right. They maintain that the “well regulated militia” clause pertains to a group of men, not the individuals. Without the “well regulated militia” the individual citizen has no use for the firearm under the Second Amendment. The first precedes the latter and without the first the latter is null.

Lastly, many on the left just dismiss the whole argument. The Constitution isn’t a fixed thing, after all. It is a “living document.” The Constitution is “a work in progress” and we can change it any time we want. So, why bother getting into the tall weeds on this? It’s outdated, we don’t have to be held to it, let’s just eliminate it. We should abandon that old White men’s document and make our own rules whenever we want to.

What the Right Says:

The right doesn’t often discuss the militia aspect of the Amendment, either, to be sure. But a proper refutation of the left’s points above is generally made when they do.

The right notes that the idea that we can just accept our military as forever harmless to we, the people, is absurd. Ben Shapiro made the argument perfectly on CNN saying, “They may not turn on me. They may not turn on my children. But the fact is this, history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. It has happened. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the last century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan.”

The left says that the founders weren’t smart enough to understand technology would change and science would create better and more lethal ways to kill. This is, of course, nonsense. Our founders were men of science and even in their day scientific discoveries were mounting. This line of reasoning holding that the founders were not smart enough to know technology would advance is a red herring, not an argument.

But let’s think of this a second way. The Second Amendment affirms a right that exists for the people. If we are to say, however, that changing technology materially alters the meaning of the right, then we are necessarily saying that advances in technology supersedes our rights! This would be a dangerous contention.

The left says the “regulated” part pertains to laws and, therefore, we can nearly regulate guns out of existence using this power. This, of course, obviates usage of the English language of the period.

The Federalist Papers (Number 29, Alexander Hamilton) gives us our clue as to what “well regulated meant.”

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

So, “well regulated” really meant “properly functioning.” It didn’t have anything to do with setting rules and laws for the militia. They also commonly imagine that doing the “regulation” should be done on a federal level where the founders expected the militias to be organized at the state level and not under federal control.

As to the individual vs collective right claim, libertarians and conservatives both say that the Constitution obviously confers the right to own a gun on the individual. Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this individual right.

Lastly, we all know that those of the right of center generally assume the Constitution to be the law of the land, a fixed document that only has to be read, not constantly “interpreted” in new and unusual ways.

The Future:

The recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) have thrown a bone in the left’s argument that the Second Amendment is only a “collective right.” From these two momentous decisions, courts are revisiting strict gun laws across the country. This will continue and many more cases will likely head toward the SCOTUS for debate. We will also see states and federal laws written to push the envelope.

Commentary:

Several things need to be pointed out. Firstly the founders did not want to exclude any standing, national army. After all, the army is taken care of elsewhere in the Constitution. The militia was supposed to exist concurrently with the standing army but operate separately.

Secondly, the founders expected that the right to self-protection was an inalienable right given to us by God. After all, without the power to protect ourselves and our property–and the sanctity of personal property is key, here–we were not free men. Those that must look to others for protection of life, liberty, and property are beholden to someone else and, therefore, not free men.

In this light, Thomas Jefferson was adamant in his drafts of the Virginia Constitution of 1776: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

You see, the founders based a lot of their ideas of the law on the ideas of an English lawyer named William Blackstone whose works were widely reprinted in the colonies.

Here is what Blackstone said about being armed in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 2, 1765: “…since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society…”

I mention this to explain why the founders did not include in the Constitution any language that specifically notes the individual’s rights. It was taken as granted and therefore unnecessary to reiterate in a document they were trying to make as concise as possible.

So, in modern terms, you cannot take away from a man the right to self-defense on either the micro or macro level. This hardbound natural right codified by Blackstone led Supreme Court Justice Joseph story to put it in clearer terms where it concerns the purpose of the militia: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,” Story wrote, “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Thirdly, the founders also located power over the military/militias in four places to further prevent its tyrannical use. Congress regulated all branches of the military, but the president was the ultimate commander of that military, yet the states were placed over the militias when not in federal service. Finally, the individual citizens were in control of their firearms never to be disarmed.

As founding father Samuel Adams said during Massachusetts’s convention to Ratify the Constitution: “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

One last point needs clarification and that is the discussion of muskets vs today’s arsenal.

The word “bear” meant to be able to carry or hold. In some parlance of the time “bear” even meant to be able place in one’s coat. This necessarily restricts the sort of arms we are talking about as it means we are talking about an arm that is operated by one person, not a team of men.

Certainly the founders meant Americans to “bear” military grade arms. One cannot be a member of a para-military group using small caliber plinkers and varmint guns. In their day arms meant military weapons. Muskets, pistols, even swords were “arms.” Cannons, land mines, and ships of war, however, were the “weapons of mass destruction” of the founder’s era. They never expected that the people had any right to those weapons of war. Such weapons of mass destruction are more properly, then and now, called ordnance as opposed to arms. It is also why the Navy is dealt with elsewhere in the Constitution.

This means that when the left taunts you by saying, “what, did the founders think you should have a rocket launcher, a jet fighter plane or a nuclear weapon?,” they are revealing their ignorance, not making a valid argument. The founders meant for the people to have military grade rifles and pistols. They excluded ships of war and cannons so by logical extension modern ordnance would similarly fall outside the rights of the Second Amendment.

So, no, the founders would NOT have thought we had a right to a nuclear weapon.

In conclusion, the Second Amendment clearly gives an individual a right to firearms, those firearms can be military grade, they can and should be expected to be used for both personal protection and to prevent government from become tyrannical by arranging themselves into para-military groups, and the government has no right whatever to take your firearms away from you.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@misteravenI still assert these rights are 100% natural, and everyone on this planet is born with the right to defend themselves regardless of what's written down/acknowledged on a piece of paper. The founding fathers didn't need a legal precedent for their argument because of this, nor do you or I for that matter. 

 

Placing the argument in the bounds of what is legal, or what was intended is a slippery slope. If the 2A is repealed by legislature 100% "legally" via constitutional amendment, still doesn't change anything. Unless you're violating the person, or property of someone else, you're entitled to these rights at birth, including the right to self defense, no matter the situation.

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don'd disagree, but I was addressing the term "militia" not our natural right to defend ourselves. Obviously related, but not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YASSSSS, cover it with news stories, show the others how much of a ruckus they can cause or how famous they can be for 5 minutes until the next guy does it better and his news story airs.

 

I'm so sick of the media covering shit like this.  This story offers ZERO value to anyone watching it.  What did we learn, what is our "take away"?  Nothing?  Ok, then why the fuck did we spend time airing that?  Just like every other gun violence story they air.

 

I'd be fine if they covered it but limited it to NO PICTURES OF THE SCENE, and only talking about it for maybe 20-30s at best.  Media people and news reporters should get a life and try to do something that will actually improve the world instead of pretending that they're doing something that improves the world.  My life isn't better after that story, and I bet nobody else's is either.  Fuck these cucks that are shooting people and the media that covers it.

  • Props 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...