Explosive Growth of Militias

Mr. Invisible said:

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, what does this have anything to do with Obama?

Click to expand...

What Obama has to do with this, is that the article correlates the election of Obama with a rise in militia groups. There is no causative correlation factually made. This is intellectual dishonesty.

The election of the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, triggered an explosion in the number of militia and so-called "patriot" groups across the U.S., a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) finds.

Click to expand...

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/officials-see-rise-in-militia-groups-across-us.php

lizzie said:

What I suspect is happening, is that the SPLC (not surprisingly) is lumping regular citizen militias in with "hate groups" and trying to paint the picture that they are one and the same.

Click to expand...

Of course they are. This is not new -- for the SPLC and for many others.

MKULTRABOY said:

U.S. News - Election, economy spark explosive growth of militias





Thoughts on this? I hope they get whacked by artillery.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about the leftwing hate monger loons at the SPLC who create fear among the weakminded by trying to convince those losers (who give the SPLC lots of money) that a bunch of rambo wannabees are a major threat to blacks, lesbians, Jews, Gays, and the other interest groups the SLPC pretends to look out for

lizzie said:

What Obama has to do with this, is that the article correlates the election of Obama with a rise in militia groups. There is no causative correlation factually made. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure... Obama has the record for most death threats against him as well.
Many of the militias are apparently apocalyptic christian groups who state he is the anti-christ.
The lack of causation defense is paper thin, still a defense however.

The idea that these groups are good ol boys defending the nation from... something... is a weak argument.

Harshaw said:

Didn't amount to anything then, and it doesn't now. The SPLC is simply trying to stir up trouble.

Click to expand...

They have to keep people agitated so the money comes in so Morris the slug can maintain his expensive lifestyle

lizzie said:

What Obama has to do with this, is that the article correlates the election of Obama with a rise in militia groups. There is no causative correlation factually made. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure... Obama has the record for most death threats against him as well.
Many of the militias are apparently apocalyptic christian groups who state he is the anti-christ.
The lack of causation defense is paper thin, still a defense however.

The idea that these groups are good ol boys defending the nation from... something... is a weak argument.

lizzie said:

What Obama has to do with this, is that the article correlates the election of Obama with a rise in militia groups. There is no causative correlation factually made. This is intellectual dishonesty.


Obama's election sparked dramatic rise in militia groups in US, report finds

Click to expand...

And from that same article, you ignored the following:



Now once again, where is the intellectual dishonesty from SPLC? It seems that you are the one who is acting in such a manner.

MKULTRABOY said:

I'm not so sure... Obama has the record for most death threats against him as well.

Click to expand...

Ummm . . . yeah.

Secret Service: Threat level against Obama no greater than under Bush, Clinton - On Congress - POLITICO.com

The anti gun leftwing nutcases claim that only members of a "well organized"militia have the right to keep and bear arms so when people form such organizations, the same far left nutcases soil their shorts over such facts. Of course they don't get as worried by groups like the crips and the bloods and the MS-13 which are far more violent far left "militias" since those groups tend to be made up of the minorities the far left loons support, enable or excuse

lizzie said:

Militia, as in the constitutional sense, is the people. These would be military-oriented people. They are, in effect, civilian soldiers, and they are perfectly legal. I'm sure you are familiar with the modern-day Minutemen. They are an unarmed militia. Other militia groups focus on constitutional issues, and teach or organize groups with similar approaches to government. Militia groups aren't hillbillies in the hills of Kentucky sporting automatic weapons. Those would be outlaws. Militias are lawful citizens who have formed groups, and are not a rebellion movement. They are subject to the law, but are not representatives of the law. Think of them as Boy Scouts with guns.


Texas Militia
http://californiastatemilitia.yolasite.com/
Welcome to the Frontpage
Unorganized Militia of Champaign County
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic
Home
About us
The Tall Grass Guard
Home - Home of the MSL
THE MAINE PATRIOT BOARD
North Carolina Citizen Militia

Click to expand...

Of course it's prefectly legal as long as they don't DO anything. But, just taking your first link as an example, it appears that many of these groups think that they have right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, as opposed to how the Supreme Court sees fit. Again, that's fine as long as they don't DO anything about it. If they want to run around the woods shooting at tin cans, more power to them. As long as they're relatively small, and not a threat to the ACTUAL government....

Harshaw said:

Ummm . . . yeah.

Secret Service: Threat level against Obama no greater than under Bush, Clinton - On Congress - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction, I was reiterating old news I had seen from a couple years ago. Bad source I assume.

MKULTRABOY said:

Thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

1) I'm not a fan of them. A lot of militias, I think, are outlets for fear and frustration, and if they aren't careful they can turn quite dangerous. I, personally, am more in favor of non-violent protest and civil disobedience.

2) On the other hand, I'm not sure if I blame them considering all the bull**** going on in the federal government nowadays. Domestic drone surveillance. Indefinite detention of American citizens. Arrests for constitutionally protected peaceful protest of our government for the redress of grievances. Things are getting worse and worse in regards to civil liberties, so I can understand why the fear is there. I feel it too.

TurtleDude said:

The anti gun leftwing nutcases claim that only members of a "well organized"militia have the right to keep and bear arms so when people form such organizations, the same far left nutcases soil their shorts over such facts. Of course they don't get as worried by groups like the crips and the bloods and the MS-13 which are far more violent far left "militias" since those groups tend to be made up of the minorities the far left loons support, enable or excuse

Click to expand...

So, a pro gun far rightwing nutcase wouldn't have a problem with, for example, the Weather Underground reconstituting, recruiting four or five hundred thousand heavily armed members, and carrying out military maneuvers in his home town? While explicitly stating that they're just keeping watch to make sure that the government doesn't do anything that *they* deem unconstitutional?

Mr. Invisable.:
You quoted the OP article of:
"The spike in these groups can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the sluggish economy, radical propaganda and anxiety over the election of a black president, [the SPLC's Mark] Potok said."

"Now once again, where is the intellectual dishonesty from SPLC? "

When I read that part of the article I took it as an opinion by Potok. Did he quote or provide outside data to support the statement? IMO, you have to take the SPLC with a grain of salt. You don't think such organizations have a slanted agenda?

samsmart said:

1) I'm not a fan of them. A lot of militias, I think, are outlets for fear and frustration, and if they aren't careful they can turn quite dangerous. I, personally, am more in favor of non-violent protest and civil disobedience.

2) On the other hand, I'm not sure if I blame them considering all the bull**** going on in the federal government nowadays. Domestic drone surveillance. Indefinite detention of American citizens. Arrests for constitutionally protected peaceful protest of our government for the redress of grievances. Things are getting worse and worse in regards to civil liberties, so I can understand why the fear is there. I feel it too.

Click to expand...

I believe many security organs in the government regard around 1/10 americans as having the means and politically radicalized enough to pose a threat.
I generally agree with your stance.

I apologise I don't want them hit with artillery.
I want them to be 25% FBI agents.

mike2810 said:

Mr. Invisable.:
You quoted the OP article of:
"The spike in these groups can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the sluggish economy, radical propaganda and anxiety over the election of a black president, [the SPLC's Mark] Potok said."

"Now once again, where is the intellectual dishonesty from SPLC? "

When I read that part of the article I took it as an opinion by Potok. Did he quote or provide outside data to support the statement? IMO, you have to take the SPLC with a grain of salt. You don't think such organizations have a slanted agenda?

Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence that the SPLC has an agenda? Seeing as how you are the one who wants "outside data" to support a statement, shouldn't you be acting in such a manner when you say organizations have an agenda?

MKULTRABOY said:

I believe many security organs in the government regard around 1/10 americans as having the means and politically radicalized enough to pose a threat.
I generally agree with your stance.

Click to expand...

A little off-topic, but a related question:
Whose fault was the Revolutionary War? Was it the King of England, or the American colonialists? Think about it.

lizzie said:

Militia, as in the constitutional sense, is the people. These would be military-oriented people. They are, in effect, civilian soldiers, and they are perfectly legal. I'm sure you are familiar with the modern-day Minutemen. They are an unarmed militia. Other militia groups focus on constitutional issues, and teach or organize groups with similar approaches to government. Militia groups aren't hillbillies in the hills of Kentucky sporting automatic weapons. Those would be outlaws. Militias are lawful citizens who have formed groups, and are not a rebellion movement. They are subject to the law, but are not representatives of the law. Think of them as Boy Scouts with guns.


Texas Militia

Click to expand...

Okay, the more I read of that first link the more I think these guys are anything but "legitimate" militia groups. :shock:

The militia/patriot movement backed down the gun hating Clintonista's in the 1990's. Now the Socialist Obomination regime in power in D.C. are even more anti-gun than the Clintonistas were and they want to pass a law declaring gun owning right wing conservatives "potential threats" and ban us from owning guns.

Click to expand...

... while suggesting that the EVIL UNITED NATIONS may just go door to do confiscating your guns!!

Rightwing nutjobs.

MKULTRABOY said:

U.S. News - Election, economy spark explosive growth of militias





Thoughts on this? I hope they get whacked by artillery.

Click to expand...

Is this really any surprise? With all the focus on rich vs poor, all the false claims of racism by not just the ordinary people but by those that are supposed to be "in the know" (IE government officials...like pelosi). The worst recession since the Great Depression. The vast amounts of bigotry and hypocrits. The tons of people that just won't listen to any side but thiers because they think that the other side is full of nothing but theives and liars while their side is as close to pristine and angelic as is possible.

Its really not just Obama. He's really just a scapegoat for the simple fact that he's The President for those that don't want to admit that they are in the wrong.

The only thing that I am surprised at is that there isn't MORE militia groups out there.

Kal'Stang said:

Is this really any surprise? With all the focus on rich vs poor, all the false claims of racism by not just the ordinary people but by those that are supposed to be "in the know" (IE government officials...like pelosi). The worst recession since the Great Depression. The vast amounts of bigotry and hypocrits. The tons of people that just won't listen to any side but thiers because they think that the other side is full of nothing but theives and liars while their side is as close to pristine and angelic as is possible.

Its really not just Obama. He's really just a scapegoat for the simple fact that he's The President for those that don't want to admit that they are in the wrong.

The only thing that I am surprised at is that there isn't MORE militia groups out there.

Click to expand...

Is that a long winded way of saying that you don't believe in democracy? We'd be better off if this country was run by a bunch of heavily armed warlords, each with his own interpretation of what the Constitution means?

AdamT said:

Is that a long winded way of saying that you don't believe in democracy? We'd be better off if this country was run by a bunch of heavily armed warlords, each with his own interpretation of what the Constitution means?

Click to expand...

How can you interpret what he said as saying that he doesn't believe in democracy? All he is doing is stating the current economic and political problems that are going on in the US today.

Mr. Invisible said:

Can you provide any evidence that the SPLC has an agenda? Seeing as how you are the one who wants "outside data" to support a statement, shouldn't you be acting in such a manner when you say organizations have an agenda?

Click to expand...

Nice dodge. So you don't need outside data to support a statement like the SPLC said. This is a debate site, so I will retract my statment of the SPLC has an agenda.
The retraction is based on that you need no supporting data for statements. All of the following must be true then?

Then you must believe this article about the SPLC
Lynn Stuter -- SPLC showing its true colors

"the SPLC website, American Border Patrol is listed as “anti-immigrant.” Anti means against; anti-immigrant, then, would mean an organization against allowing people to enter the country, legally, to become citizens.

Is this a true representation of American Border Patrol? It becomes very apparent, in a walk through of the American Border Patrol website, that American Border Patrol has no problem with those who enter this country legally with the intent of becoming citizens, are legal immigrants; that the American Border Patrol only has a problem with foreign nationals who enter the United States without the proper papers and without the proper authorization; who are, in fact, illegal aliens. Such entry into the United States is, by law, a criminal act, a criminal offense. There is a great deal of difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant or illegal alien.

or no issue with this article Faith Group Protests Southern Poverty Law Center Over 'Hate Group' Label, Christian News

and last but not least. you must believe all of this.SPLC's Mark Potok Inadvertently Reveals Agenda, Motive, Method | VDARE.com

AdamT said:

Is that a long winded way of saying that you don't believe in democracy? We'd be better off if this country was run by a bunch of heavily armed warlords, each with his own interpretation of what the Constitution means?

Click to expand...

Democracy by itself is destructive, our founding fathers understood this and is the reason that we are a REPUBLIC democracy (emphasis on republic) and not just a democracy. But no. If anything I am saying that I am sick and fracking tired of all the hyperpartisan politicing going on. If anything I am saying that we all need to unite and stop the crap going on in the government that is createing the divide that we are seeing across all the spectrums of the political sphere. If anything I am saying that people need to grow thicker skins and stop calling out "RACISM!!!!" at every little fracking thing. If anything I am saying that we all need to start listening, and thinking, and understanding instead of bickering over every little fracking thing. God/evolution gave us a brain for a reason...we need to start using it instead of just reacting to everything.

Paschendale said:

Personally, I'm not all that comfortable with armed groups rolling around like this. Especially when racism, homophobia, and religiously motivated bigotry is often a part of their agendas. I don't see how these groups are any different from gangs. Both groups support violence and exclusivity, and are armed with dangerous weapons. So yeah, I see these militias as gangs with different terminology. And they differ by their age and race, of course.

Click to expand...

Bud, the typical militia is nothing to fear.

Lemme splain...

Average militia meeting....

8 AM formation and briefing.... this means people drag in at random between 8 and 10 AM, talk about deer hunting and NASCAR and drink coffee....

9AM Tactical drill (reset to 10:30 AM).... some guy who was an E6 and worked in the motor pool lectures on movement-to-contact, and they spend an hour in the woods doing some very basic maneuvers... poorly....

10 AM Range Time (reset to 11:30 AM) .... an hour or so spent shooting at targets with whatever weapons they have, mostly semi-auto AKs and ARs and shotguns.

Noon Lunch (reset to 12:45). Barbeque and beer. This blows the afternoon schedule to hell, because by the time everybody has eaten all the barbecue and drank three or four beers, they're not really inclined to do anything but sit in their campchairs and drink MORE beer and talk about deer hunting, NASCAR, and what a bastard Obama is.

5 PM --- Everybody is pretty drunk by now and their longsuffering wives are driving them home, except for Earl who insists he can drive until Captain Billy-Joe (former clerk, rank corporal US Airforce) shouts him down and makes him give up his truck keys.

Satisfied, in their drunken haze, that they've made America safe for democracy with their training, they head home to eat supper and sleep it off....


You prolly think I jest. I do not. I've known some militia guys.


I would have joined (the barbeque is great and those guys know all the best places to hunt) but I just couldn't drink that much beer.

mike2810 said:

Nice dodge. So you don't need outside data to support a statement like the SPLC said. This is a debate site, so I will retract my statment of the SPLC has an agenda.
The retraction is based on that you need no supporting data for statements. All of the following must be true then?

Then you must believe this article about the SPLC
Lynn Stuter -- SPLC showing its true colors

"the SPLC website, American Border Patrol is listed as “anti-immigrant.” Anti means against; anti-immigrant, then, would mean an organization against allowing people to enter the country, legally, to become citizens.

Is this a true representation of American Border Patrol? It becomes very apparent, in a walk through of the American Border Patrol website, that American Border Patrol has no problem with those who enter this country legally with the intent of becoming citizens, are legal immigrants; that the American Border Patrol only has a problem with foreign nationals who enter the United States without the proper papers and without the proper authorization; who are, in fact, illegal aliens. Such entry into the United States is, by law, a criminal act, a criminal offense. There is a great deal of difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant or illegal alien.

or no issue with this article Faith Group Protests Southern Poverty Law Center Over 'Hate Group' Label, Christian News

and last but not least. you must believe all of this.SPLC's Mark Potok Inadvertently Reveals Agenda, Motive, Method | VDARE.com

Click to expand...

What do you mean "nice dodge?" Is it a problem that I am asking you to back up your statements?

LOLZ. Why are you linking to articles and say that I must believe them? None of the articles you gave prove that the SPLC has an agenda. Proving that the SPLC has an agenda would mean that you have actual documentation that the SPLC is saying and doing things all with the purpose of promoting a certain viewpoint.

EDIT:

The first article does not do that. The second article only shows that some Christians are upset at how the SPLC uses their hate lablel. The final article is a complete joke. It's more of an opinion piece rather than an article that is presenting the facts. This is shown in not only the tone of the article, but also childish behavior such as replacing the S with $.