Will we see an increased militia presence if Clinton enters the White House?

We saw a sharp rise in militia presence once Obama became president. Militias are stepping up to protect our southern border and with the totally out of control judicial system and corporate oligarchy continue to diminish the quality of life for people worldwide, they may be needed now more than ever!

So besides the assanine or idiotic method of tossing coins to determine presidential candidates.

Wait why do we have a two party system? It's such bull#.

thehill.com...

There were at least 276 militia groups active in the United States last year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center — a 37 percent rise over the 202 such groups in 2014.

As we have more and more militia groups with a growing anti government sentiment it becomes inevitable that some of these groups will act out.

So what do you think? After another false hope election and Hillary using mafia tactics to steal the election are we going to see an increased presence like after Obama?

a reply to: onequestion

Heads, we form a militia.


Tails? We go home and watch tv.

The peoples militias are going to increase no matter what puppet gets installed as POTUS......
Their presence will become more pronounced at demonstrations etc....

if they didnt do anything when a "muslim antichrist zionist nazi kenyan, zombie" named barrack hussein obama entered office, i dont think they will do anything this time, unless they also hate women. its always hot air.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You gonna let Killary pick heads or tails?

With this public face palm in Colorado the national mood about militias seems to waver between they are bunch of idiots to they are terrorists. Their will always be a small collection not very bright people who join up and of course the crazy people but, for your average US citizen they are either a threat or simply a joke.

We usually always see more "domestic terrorism" when Democrats are in the White House, and more external "foreign terrorism" when Republicans are in the White House.

At least it seems that way. My theory is that when a Republican is in office, they focus more on foreign (abroad) threats. This keeps these militia types from feeling like the government is operating in their back yard.

When a Democrat is in the White House, there's less of a focus on foreign enemy threats everywhere, and the lack of externalized threats (in the minds of these domestic terrorists) causes them to look around internally and see the government as the enemy more.

My question would be whether we would see an increase in militarized police state presence?

a reply to: onequestion

That might just be what needs to be done to make a true change. Anybody rooting for Hillaryous now???

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: onequestion

Heads, we form a militia.


Tails? We go home and watch tv.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Had an Indonesian Engineer working with me when I was in the oilfield back in '03. It was a nasty and muddy location. I told him we'd flip a coin to see who gets to roll up all the electric lines for the pumps. I flipped the coin several times, saying "heads I win, tails you lose, are you ready? Call it." He could only speak broken English, so I got him every time. I had no idea Hillary was going to pull that same trick on another clueless guy 13 years later.

I think you will get that too.....(militarized police)
One will precipitate the other....
Meanwhile many fence sitters will jump on way or the other....
Perhaps some don't take the militias seriously....but there is a right to bear arms that many others will begin to
use......
The whole armed demonstrator bull # will moot as everybody will be armed that's not barred from doing so.....
Militias or not....the police will tremble at hundreds of citizens with arms packing signs in the streets....
Imagine what the scenario would be with mass armed demos....not militias just citizens....

Honestly?

Given the state of the country and the general intractability of people's opinions on how to fix our problems. I expect trouble no matter what.

Left: We need more or less total government control of all facets of everything to fix our problems.

Rights: We need the government to leave us the hell alone and crawl back under a rock somewhere.

You tell me where there is the ability to compromise that. And you tell me the losing side in the election will be anything but bitterly unhappy with the results and accept it gracefully as the other side gleefully sets about realizing its grand vision.

Somehow, I am very pessimistic that we are looking at the second American Civil War.

The Right to Bear Arms =/= Militia Membership. The vast majority of armed citizens in the US are NOT members or even sympathizers of the militia groups (just based on number of firearms out there.) Indeed, one could safely say that most armed Americans are pro-government and pro-LEO, and at least some portion is armed to protect themselves AGAINST the militia groups.

Most militia groups are small, isolated, extremist, and without good leadership. And the government likes it that way. If a charismatic militia leader ever arose, one who could potentially unite the disparate groups and attract more mainstream disgruntled citizens, well, he probably wouldn't last long.

a reply to: onequestion

If history proves correct, there will either be more or an increase in membership in already-existing ones.

There's an ebb and flow with R versus D presidents, always falling with the Rs and rising with the Ds.

Of course, if they were paying attention, militias would realize that both parties are equally terrible at eroding away our freedoms and liberties, and even worse at enforcing laws already on the books.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: onequestion

If history proves correct, there will either be more or an increase in membership in already-existing ones.

There's an ebb and flow with R versus D presidents, always falling with the Rs and rising with the Ds.

Of course, if they were paying attention, militias would realize that both parties are equally terrible at eroding away our freedoms and liberties, and even worse at enforcing laws already on the books.

The R's and D's are all one bunch. They gave us the Patriot Act... not just the R's did it, not just the D's. They gang-banged us.

a reply to: onequestion

Isn't the US militia just the general public when armed?

I made this assertion the other day and the discussion dissolved into quibbling over semantics.

For those who know ... it is my understanding that the LEGAL bases of the American militia (US Constitution, State Constitutions, 1903 Militia Act, and I guess Common Law) would require that the militia(s) are under the command of either:

1. The Governor of a State (as Commander in Chief).
2. An Adjutant or other Officer placed in charge by the Governor.
3. The President of the United States.

The militia exists in a command structure headed by Civilian Elected Officials ... or it's not a legal militia.

Right or wrong, with backup?

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: onequestion

Isn't the US militia just the general public when armed?

Originally, that was the idea. In fact, that's where the current "militias" get their name. In 1776 the "militia" meant every male citizen who kept a rifle behind the front door. "Well regulated" meant well-organized groups who knew how to use a rifle, which everyone did back then, like a "well regulated" clock meant one that could tell precise time correctly. People who say "well-regulated militia" meant the National Guard are forgetting there was no such thing as the National Guard back then, and "National Guards" are run by the states, one of the things the militias were organized specifically to NOT be.

Today, of course, that aspect of the "militia" is long gone. Your average citizen has lost the skill, and it's not as if anyone is ever called upon to organize against an Indian attack or the incursion of a foreign army. Today when people think "militia" they usually mean an extremist right-wing group that wears camo and is anti-government.

Edit to add: As Gryphon says, the militia acts subsequent to the constitution added command and control provisions to the forming of militias, though the first one in 1792 was rather vague in terms of who controlled them. The Constitution itself, meaning the Second Amendment itself, is silent on the issue.

a reply to: schuyler

But ... even in the old days, the militias were in command of someone ... right? A governor, or mayor, or burgher or local knight or ... someone within what could be called "the chain of command" ... they weren't just organized bands of armed men (and women) doing as they wished ...

See my edit where I agree with Gryph about this. Probably the most famous incident of the "militia" rallying to the cause was the "Shot heard round the world" and Paul Revere. His warning that the "Redcoats are coming" resulted in the confrontation at the bridge. (Note: He probably did not say that. One source says he or others said, "The Regulars are coming," which is right to our point.) In this case the citizens did, indeed, grab their guns from behind the front door and run to confront the Redcoats at Lexington, who proceeded to shoot some of them dead. (Note 2: It was none other than John Adams who acted a s a lawyer to defend the redcoats who were subsequently brought to trial.) If there was any "leadership" there it was very impromptu.

This happened well before there was a Constitution or a Congress and was first codified in the Bill of Rights.