[921] in libertarians
Militias
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Obear)
Mon Apr 24 08:47:34 1995
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:47:22 -0400
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
From: chris@shore.net (Chris Obear)
> I knew I was going to get one of these replies.
> "A
>large portion of these militia people ARE ultra right-wing wackos".
What is a "large portion"? What's a "wacko"?
>They just overlap rhetorically on topics such as guns and liberals.
>What would you accept as backing this up? Chip Berlet's research
>reports (probably ruled out because he's on the left ...)? We've just
>ruled out netnews posting, because any article can be invalidated as a
>dirty-trick by opponents. And of course any news report is out, because
>that's the "liberal media".
Based on what, then? You show nothing but your own opinion.
> I've got a feeling I would never be able to
>establish anything to your satisfaction, unless the commanders suddenly
>start wearing sheets (even then, you'd probably say he's just drying laundry).
So now your allegations are race-hate? Based on what? While militias are
predominantly white , they are by no means completely white. Whites have
no monopoly on mistrust of gov't.. Either you didn't know that, or you
just choose to ignore it.
> Look at what they flame about - how many times is the BATF
>mentioned, as opposed to the DEA, which is FAR more dangerous?
Dangerous to whom? Apparently you aren't aware of the NUMEROUS cases of ATF
abuse, resulting in injury and death, with no consequences. Would you
like a list? ATF efforts are almost ENTIRELY aimed at gun owners, and
always have been, which encompasses far more American citizens than illegal
drugs ever has. You can't know much of ATF history to make that statement.
>How much
>talk is there of actual unit discipline, as opposed to what are good
>guns?
Online? This is the basis for these posts? Probably not as much as in
their actual training sessions, which would be the more appropriate setting
for "unit discipline" discussions. BTW, I am not an active member of any
militia, but communicate with many net-accessable militia members. Even
though there are quite a few in this area, some of which operate more as
historical than modern, it is more because I am physically unable to train
vigorously. I am, however, just as you are, a member of the unorganized
militia by law. Want it cited?
>Do they debate any of the multitude of questions having to do with
>the incredibly momentous step of armed rebellion? There's revolution,
>and revolution-wannabes. These people are wannabes, fueled by myth and
>fantasy. It's mostly a far right-wing political society, not any sort of
>defense group.
Make up your mind. You claim they don't study armed rebellion, yet advocate
it. You claim they advocate revolution, when training, focus, and all PR
is focused on defense. I investigate things like the UN, when they put
forth a resolution advocating disarmament of citizenry in all countries, and
focus on the gun industry in the U.S.. I investigate abuse of gov't power
in all it's forms, but particularly the increased persecution of gun owners.
Does this make ME a revolution-wannabe, or a member of a "right-wing
political society"
> They aren't Libertarians at all. Once again, for tediums sake,
>this does not mean that a Libertarian cannot be found in a militia. Many
>such are probably attracted by common views on guns and liberals. But
>where Libertarianism and the right-wing disagree, expect to find the
>former ignored or actively reviled.
Bullshit. Again, the voice of ignorance, from someone who isn't a member,
yet holds himself up to know.
>How many militia groups have
>declared their intentions to protect the peaceful marijuana farmers from
>proclaimed illegal, unConstitutional, Federal attacks on their land and
>property?
They usually don't grow or use marijuana, so hardly would feel the
*immediate* need to surround the peaceful pot farmer's field to defend it
forcefully from the DEA. They do however own guns, and see the gov't
coming for them, and do feel the need to protect each other. I certainly
hope you don't need evidence to support that?
>> Liberals hate guns, and they'll use any form of propaganda to accomplish
>> their gun-banning agenda. Witness Randy Weaver. Did Randy Weaver go
>
> And I suppose they hate the Internet, they'll use any form of
>propaganda to accomplish their Internet-banning agenda
Sorry, lost track, who is *they* now, in the above?
> No, ALL the incidents used in propaganda are about people who
>are conservative, white, and cultists or survivalists. That tells me a
>lot in and of itself. When's the last time you heard anyone throw up the
>MOVE Philadelphia bombing as an example of a government atrocity? The one
>exception to this rule is when someone makes an abstract statement like
>"gun control is racist" and refers to the Civil War, something safely
>in the past.
More bullshit. Gun control is inherently racist, and the Act of '68 was
primarily aimed at the minority population. I have several full articles
on the pattern of racist gun control. Hardly abstract, certainly no more
abstract than many libertarian concepts.
> They significantly don't talk about anything of the sort
>that happened in modern times. Kind of interesting, again, because of
>some of the examples you'd think would be used otherwise.
>
> The reply is exactly what I'm talking about.
You didn't quote "it", so I don't know.
> I write that the
>Militia movement isn't your friend, it just overlaps a bit, and get back
>a response that, though it makes some points, again goes down the path
>of "Guns! Liberals! Federal Government!"
And you and other libertarians don't?
> that's what's fueling this politics, NOTHING ELSE.
I don't find you to be a reliable and credible source of accurate information.
Chris Obear
*********************************************************************
"When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it."
