Feds Raid Alabama Militia Group, Uncover Small Weapons Arsenal

Originally posted by Strangerous
Apart from the difference in pigment could someone explain the difference between two groups of crazies armed to the teeth and fighting (or planning to fight) against an elected government.

That's easy.

85% of the American people would tend to agree (I'm guessing, since they're against being in Iraq). Bush43 and his cohorts are the one's putting those two types of people on the plain of being a terrorist.

Hell, here in America, they've brought forth legislation to make it illegal for US citizens to protect their own country as shown here

'Protect'? from whom?

Forgive me I thought you had massive forces, bases all over the world, and the biggest surveillance system the world has ever seen to protect your country.

I'm sure the zealots in Iraq would claim to be 'protecting' their country too.

I still see no difference apart from colour/nationality

As previously pointed out in my thread, "The Coming Demise of American Militias," we will see more and more laws at the Federal and State level designed to classify honest militia participatants and gun owners as enemies.

Not to wax Constitutionalist here, but...
State Governments don't have the Constitutional authority to "abridge" the Second Amendment...For that matter, neither does the Federal Government. "Congress shall make no law abridging [Constituional Rights]"...So if the Feds arent' allowed to legislate a law to "trump" the Constitution, then neither can the States.

...Not that the Constitution ever stopped jerks like that anyway.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by Strangerous
'Protect'? from whom?

"Protect" from illegal immigrants, regardless of their homeland.

Under the United States Constitution, Congress was to have the sole authority to make laws regarding naturalization. Whether people like it or not, there's a system of rules set forth in order to become a citizen of this nation. You don't follow the laws as set forth for naturalization, then you're a criminal from the get go.

The influx of illegal immigrants into this nation is just that... illegal. The "Joe Blow" US citizen cannot even take arms to protect his/her nation's border anymore.

Just like the gun control laws being forced upon the apathetic, it's another notch in the belt for the federal government to erase the border and form the N.A.U.

[edit on 4/28/2007 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
*Sigh*

People, it's in the Constitution in black-and-white, the Militia was the predecessor to the National Guard. It was ONE group divided at the state level and it always reported to the President and Congress. It was reorganized in 1903 to be the National Guard. The Second Amendment ONLY applies to the National Guard's right to exist. It says nothing about civilian firearm ownership, which could legally be banned across the board tomorrow if the votes were there.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow. I can't believe that I just read that. Let me get this straight, it's you're opinion that the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the Militia/National Guard, correct? If this is so, then I would like to refer you to the text of the ACTUAL 2nd Amendment really fast [emphasis mine]:

Amendment II

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.

Courtesy of The National Archives.

Now, With that said, I'd like to point out a few things. First off, it's said that the purpose of the militia is to secure the free State, not the security of the world. Why then, are we sending these men and women off to fight in wars outside our own borders? Reorganization doesn't constitute reallocation. For this to be true, you must then accept that the National Guard is being misused by the government. Why not put them where they belong, on the borders of our nation, so that they can do the jobs for which they were organized? It truly is striking to me that some don't see the ways that the militia has been denegrated over the past several years.

Also, "the security of a free state" from what? If you read the Federalist Papers, it was an attempt to prevent another corrupt regime, such as England was to the Founders at the time, from coming along and wiping them out. Now, please explain to me and everyone else here, if you will, how the militias were supposed to be answerable to the national government, when in fact they were intended to be a separate entity, with the express purpose of preventing another tyrannical regime from taking hold? To me, this sounds like just one more way that the few at the top are trying to take control of those at the bottom.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the clause that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". No where in that statement does it say that the national guard are the only ones that should have that right. To be able to read that, and then turn around and say that the government has complete authority to take the right to own firearms away from the People just goes to show how misinformed some can be. Please, I beg of you to research the foundation of this great nation, and study the intents of the founders, paying special focus on the formation of the military and economic systems, as those are the two that have been most abused.

Please don't take any of what I have said offensively, as that's not how I intend for it to come out. I just want to impress upon everyone how important it really is for everyone to remember what the Constitution really says, and not what the elites want us to think it says.

TheBorg

Don't you have courts and the police for that? Or are you advocating death squads who extra-judicially 'off' people who might be illegal immigrants.

This sounds like armed racist extremism to me.

Still not had any real differences detailed between your patriots and their terrorsists

My money is on, I'm afraid, skin colour.

Of course we have courts/police, however, in limited numbers incapable of processing the numbers that come flowing across the borders.

Death squads... absolutely not. Patriots, defenders of the homeland.

There's no need for playing a race card, now is there?

Well, sometimes, there's just no pleasing everyone.

Originally posted by StrangerousDon't you have courts and the police for that? Or are you advocating death squads who extra-judicially 'off' people who might be illegal immigrants.

Try to find anything in any of my posts that even remotely describes the type of "death squad" you describe. Can't find any? I didn't think so.

I think your problem is that you're not really trying to see what's actually being written compared to what you think is being written. Granted, I'm aware that not everyone posting here has English as their primary language, but without "language," we have no real method of communicating with each other (especially on a forum board, such as this). I can understand this particular point, because I'd have less trouble decyphering Egyptian Heiroglyphs than I do with most modern languages. The Babelfish Translator does come in handy, although sometimes certain phrases & language context gets lost; Computer-based translators always have some limitations, after all.

This is why I personally strive to write exactly what I mean, for the benefit of the worldwide participation that comes into ATS. Please take note that this may not be the reason for you're misunderstandings here, I'm merely explaining a possible reason that does apply in many cases...All just to get a point across that misunderstandings are common on the WWW & most of us regulars do try to clarify misunderstandings (for whatever reason).

[edit on 28-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

I don't mean to interrupt, but please let me clear up a few things.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Don't you have courts and the police for that? Or are you advocating death squads who extra-judicially 'off' people who might be illegal immigrants.

It's true that there are hate groups in America that will, if given the chance, go on the rampage to kill people color because they believe in their own innate superiority. Like it or not, you can find groups like that in most countries.

What we ARE talking about here are the civic-minded pro-nationalist groups that aspire to democratic ideals of enlightenment that could put them at odds with an intrusive government.

Originally posted by Strangerous
This sounds like armed racist extremism to me.

It's now coming out that the group in Alabama that got raided did in fact have racist ideology. You won't find any sympathy for those guys here, but you will find concern for the legal precedents that result from this encounter which will be used to unfairly mis-label and mis-characterize the honest pro-guns groups.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Still not had any real differences detailed between your patriots and their terrorsists.

While it's true that one man's terrorist is often another man's patriot, let's remember the facts of this case.

I'm perfectly capable of reading what's written thanks, being from England English is, strangely enough, my first language.

'Death Squads' was my extrapolation of a group armed with bombs 'needed' to fight illegal immigrants. I didn't realise the bombs were just for show and they were going to use leaflets and gentle persusasion - how niaive of me

As some have appreciated the difference between patriot and terrorist is purely one of perception (and it appears location).

This concept of 'nationalists' who are arming to fight against the elected government is the one I'm struggling with - every terrorist group you can name would claim the same, PIRA, Shining Path etc etc.

If it's OK for groups from the US to stockpile bombs etc then it must be OK for any other group to do likewise - welcome to anarchy!

It seems that because these guys were white/anglo (looking at the names) and from the US some feel they should be given the benefit of the doubt whereas if/when they launch a murderous campaign and decide that you/people like you are the enemy you might find your attitude changing.

We're mostly lucky enough to live in countries where voting / peaceful protest gives us the opportunity to change our governments. Anyone choosing to do so by armed means is merely a terrorist - whatever their ethnicity

Originally posted by Strangerous
We're mostly lucky enough to live in countries where voting / peaceful protest gives us the opportunity to change our governments. Anyone choosing to do so by armed means is merely a terrorist - whatever their ethnicity

It seems that, over in England, you don't seem to realize that we have such peaceful means available too...And that they are in progress even as I write this & have been used at various times throughout our history. The armed & violent option is the last choice when the Government refuses to respond to peaceful methods...Oh, perhaps I'm forgetting to mention that it's a combination of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independance, the Articles of Confederation & the Constitution (& especially the Bill of Rights) that provide these peaceful methods to be used first.

Originally posted by Strangerous
This concept of 'nationalists' who are arming to fight against the elected government is the one I'm struggling with - every terrorist group you can name would claim the same, PIRA, Shining Path etc etc.

Gee, it sounds like you're willing to lump all such "nationalists" in with "terrorist" groups & being all of the same stripe. If you have any historical knowledge of the 200+ years since the King violated the Magna Carta, why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Perhaps I've failed to remember that England doesn't give a damn about our Constitution, does it? After all, the Crown of England totally disregarded the Magna Carta (that the King agreed to & signed) & that's what drove his "subjects" away from him in the first place, so why should you bother to learn anything about the Constitution?
Do you still consider all Americans to still be the "terrorists" that opposed the King, even after more than two centuries? Is this what you seem to imply?
The "elected government" that you're referring to is breaking our Constitution, the same as King James kept violating the Magna Carta. Does that makes all of those people who suffered from the King's violations "terrorists?"
Does it also justify that Americans today are now suffering under the same sort of violations under its own corrupted government? Does it justify that the very same "elected government" you refer to is violating the very same Constitution that they've sworn an Oath to obey? Does this explanation make it any easier for you to grasp the concept?

Don't take this to mean that I will either condone or condem groups, like the one specified in this thread, until the facts determine whether they were acting within their Constitutional Rights or not. After all, if they were acting against the principles that made us strong enough to fight off English oppression, then they don't deserve my support; That much (at least) should go without saying.
Are you in the habit of condeming before the facts are known? Let me point out that our Constitution provides for "innocence until proven guilty" & that requires facts, after all (regardless of how a corrupted government my tend to "color" or "bias" the facts). In short, you can't trust media to tell the truth, because they're biased & they will tend to their "coprorate interests" before they tend to the Constitution...They never have to swear the Oath to obey it, after all. A healthy dose of skeptisism goes a long way towards finding the truth; Don't rely on one source of info...Double-check everything, the source as much as the info itself.

They never have to swear the Oath to obey it, after all.

Exactly. Medias aren't by law obligated to report all the news, nor questionning them, nor tell the truth. That's why medias aren't reliable and when you know who owns them, you despise them.

I'll be the first one to agree that stockpiling of bombs is out of line for any patriotic group. Second amendment advocates in America seek to preserve the tradition of firearms ownership. We recognize that if we give up that capability, we lose the tradition that preserves the knowledge that such resistence is possible. We would also lose the contextual knowledge of "how to" that would only be possible if we retained our legal right to keep and maintain arms.

It's one thing to know how to make bombs and rockets. Its another to actually make them...and sell them. There is an aspect of "propriety" here that I am advocating for. Our leaders are currently in a position to make the case that we (as a society) can't behave with our guns...so we should lose legal standing to have them. If we are going to make our case to gun control advocates, we will need to appeal to them on more than one level.

Our best appeal can be made by better behavior. It's not enough to win in the courts, we need to win over the advocates of intrusive government by demonstration. If we can't behave in such a way that is destinctly different than the terrorists whom our politicians will seek tp exploit, we won't be able to sway the voting majority to our ivew. If we can win the social argument, our politicians will not try to exploit terrorism because it'll be bad politics to try.

Are you saying that we need to behave better?
Are you saying that we need to behave better so the federal govt. won't violate our rights?

Guys I'm a shooter, gun-owner, and ex-military (ish) so I'm not anti-gun in anyway what so ever.

I have some basic knowledge of explosives and could make something nasty if so desired. Many on here could say the same but like me they recognise the dangers of such actions.

When we were kids we happily made petrol bombs and the odd sugar/fertilizer device, at least one air raid shelter was felled by our efforts.

But times have clearly changed

My only point on all this was that some seemed to be defending these guys purely because they called themselves a patriot militia. On the other side of the world people with exactly the same self-justification are called terrorists and shot on sight.

As for all that Magna Carta stuff you yanks have always taken that much more seriously than we do. In fact the Charter of the Forest is much more important in defining the relationship between state and citizen in the UK.

Even if your elected government is acting outside its remit then the only legal / reasonable response IMO is peaceful protest. This demonstrates two things; the numbers holding that view and that you are reasonable people. Any armed challenge to an elected Govt is terrorism and should be treated as such - wherever it occurs.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Even if your elected government is acting outside its remit then the only legal / reasonable response IMO is peaceful protest. This demonstrates two things; the numbers holding that view and that you are reasonable people. Any armed challenge to an elected Govt is terrorism and should be treated as such - wherever it occurs.

We strive to be good citizens. That does mean a certain amount of good behavior and social comportment. We are obliged by law and by tradition to seek legal redress for the things done to us. It's not in the American tradition to attack our own government, but it is within our social orthodoxy to see the need to defend ourselves from the activities of our own government.

There is a distinct and profound difference between challenging a government, and preventative measures designed to thwart unfriendly moves by that government. We advocate for civilian-grade weapons rather than military-grade weapons as a sign of good faith. We understand the difference between defensive arms and offensive weapons. It's that "intent" that we seek to preserve.

Some of you think that one person's voice can't matter. Right? Wrong. I've just learned that one of my arguments is being looked at by a presidential candidate. Doesn't matter? Hey, I'm using my voice while I've still got it. "Somebody" was influenced enough to bring this to their masters. If I can do this, so can you. Use your voice while you still have it.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Even if your elected government is acting outside its remit then the only legal / reasonable response IMO is peaceful protest. This demonstrates two things; the numbers holding that view and that you are reasonable people. Any armed challenge to an elected Govt is terrorism and should be treated as such - wherever it occurs.

So, lets say we do this, and we make all of the valid point and counterpoints, and them come to a conclusion, all in time for them to tell us no. What do we do then? What happens when all of the peaceful protests no longer work because the bureaucrats have decided that we no longer have any way to stop them from doing what they want? What choices are left to us to remedy the situation?

Now, maybe if you put yourself in this position, you may begin to see where we find ourselves sometimes.

TheBorg

Mr Oldham, while I agree that there are many folks who abuse firearms, the consitution clearly states that the militia which is made up of "citizens" have the right ot bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

Our current politicians and political system aren't interested in preserving the rights and freedoms of the people. They are only interested in preserving their power over the people. Their faulty decisions have already cost the lives of thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens. What will it take for Americans to wake up to the coming dictatorship? Foreign soldiers occupying our soil and brutalizing our citizens?