Going Way Too Far, Ok Tea Party Wants Own Militia

If one familiarizes ones self with the documents relating to and leading up to the ratification of our Constitution one can understand the thinking of the founding fathers and why they believed it's parts and the amendments were so important.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I think this itself may be the rather circuitously and rhetorically worded false assumption; but if the response to acting on it even now, as if it were already a given, is to arm preemptively and in essence prime the expectation of violence, then this is a left-handed but fairly transparent attempt to force an armed revolution while trying to stick the blame on an "oppressor". If the new legislation is going to be litigated and overturned, that still does not call for armed resistance.

Dogshirt, although he is still being a bit evasive as to particulars, at least has the guts to come right out and say what he believes is happening.

Life isn't Hollywood. I think your "what ifs" are far fetched, and sound like a ptich for a new Chuck Norris flick. Shall we cue the theme music?

There are other options for the states, the feds and the citizens than armed conflict over health care. What you're posting here is madness, and I for one have at least enough faith in government at both levels to presume their ability to come up with better options than this. Your scenario is insane. Again, I'm not talking about standing up for the constitution as being insane, but the methods of enforcement and resistance in your scenario.

Any group arming itself over its fantasies of a likely government takeover of state authority by military means is delusional. There must be some predisposition waiting in the wings for a suitably justifiable provocation with some of these groups to grab their guns over health care. That seems to me the more pertinent issue.

A simple solution to the constitutional question would be for the SCOTUS to simply rule that the mandatory purchase of health care (and/or other aspects of the bill) is unconstitutional without ruling the entire bill to be so. Dump it back in the congressional cauldron and let them come up with a new brew. No tanks need roll down Main Street America. This process has been in effect all along, why would you assume that it has fallen apart and the enforcement of legislation must now be from the barrel of a gun? Don't you think the Obama administration would prefer less extreme methods? What would they gain by a military incursion into the states? Civil war? Over health care? Do you really think anyone wants health care legislation that badly?

Your saying that if a state declares it will not follow federal laws and instead starts making its own laws in contradiction to the federal government, that said state would not be de fact seceding from the union? Of course it would. Would the feds send in the army? Do you remember Wallace standing in the school house door and the Alabama National Guard being federalized to enforce segregation. Did you study about Fort Sumpter in school, remember the ultimate results? The lesson is clear, the federal government will brook no defiance on the basis of states rights. The state level politicians of today, don't have the gonads to go to war with the feds and any local militia that tried would be totally eliminated. Is this what you are advocating? You say that it's the federal government doing it to you, but you would be the one who decides to break the law. A law that was passed by the Senate and House of Representatives and signed into law by the president. These people were elected by folks in every state in the union. For congressmen, the majority of folks in every state in the union, for president the majority of electors in accordance with the US Constitution that you say you are trying to protect. Perhaps you did not vote for them, but that does not change the fact that they were elected by the people. Don't like it, then get involved in politics and elect a new government. Armed rebellion is a stupid idea and the resort of people who are extremists to the point that they no longer have any solid grasp of reality. Creating and joining an armed militia for the stated purpose of resisting the federal government or defending against the federal government or however you wish to parse it is foolhardy and stupid.

I am very actively involved in politics and some here "obviously" do not like that. In fact, I soon will be leaving for La. That is what the Tea Party is really about. It was named after the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor of December 16, 1773. That one led to the founding of our country and we hope that this one will lead to the saving of our country.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

And to my knowledge, you are not advocating armed rebellion but are trying to use the ballot box as is proper. I have no argument with that. I do disagree with your opinions and some of your statistics, but as you say, that is politics. What I don't like are the nincompoops who think arming themselves for "the revolution" is a smart thing to do. If one wants to purchase a gun, fine. But if one wants to plan or incite or join in some kind of "armed resistance", that is very objectionable to me.

I just saw the new FBI crime stats that indicate that as arms sales increased, violent crime (including murder) decreased drastically. The people buying these arms are not using them illegally. If someone is on a watch list for being a member of a questionable group, they will not get a firearm.

I talk to many people as Dogshirt and others here also do. In most of America the people are not at all satisfied with the direction the country is being taken. In La, I will wander the area around our hotel and talk to as many locals as possible. When we eat out on these trips, they get mad at me as I am always the last ready to head back to the hotel. I believe Dogshirt travels a lot too and this enables us to gage just how the public feels.

The malitia is not at all like the media portrays it. The ones I am familiar with work with law enforcement if body retrieval and finding lost persons. They help with crowd control and none are planning to overthrow the government. In my state they are the only organization that has trained Blood Hounds trained to find cadavers or lost people. They even have at least one that can locate a drowning victim from the scent over the water as the dog is moved through a search grid in a boat.

There are and always have been radical groups. With 350 Million people here, they can not be avoided.

Todays radio news reported that a gay rights group had circulated pictures and home addresses of council members in a city in this general area who voted against a measure they favored. An FBI spokesman stated that the group was on their watch list as a "domestic terrorist group." Does this cast a shadow on all gay groups? Absolutely not! Just as one bad malitia (using the term loosely in their case) should not cast a shadow on all malitia groups.

There are bad people through out the world. For the most part, we will not know them till we meet them. It behoves all of us to have a plan to protect ourselves.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

This thread is specifically talking about the groups in Oklahoma who want to form an armed militia to resist the government and any that may be of similar purpose. It is those people who are coming very close to what I call treason. There are legal avenues to take to work on changing the system. Armed resistance is not an acceptable method of protest.

In Oklahoma the people speaking of forming an armed militia were described as Tea Party leaders. If the general Tea Party movement wants any credibility as a legitimate political movement, then it needs to loudly disavow any association with these people and make sure that the national media covers that disavowal. And take legal action to prevent these people from identifying themselves with the Tea Party. Failure to do that implies tacit approval of their agenda and that is unacceptable.

Equivacations telling us that many people are upset or angry are not disavowals of that element wanting violent confrontation. There needs to be specific language that says these people are wrong and are not part of your movement.

The Constitution gives only certain rights to the federal govt and all others NOT listed belong to the states. Just because the federal govt does something does not make it Constitutional. Many states are now or have amended their own Constitutions to relieve themselves from control of the federal govt other than what the US Constitution allows. Eventually all will probably have to follow for their own fiscal survival.

There are no amendments to the US Constitution changing the federal govt's rights so I do not know just where it could go. The SC would be a good choice but I do not see obama doing that! I do know that the military has had little success in finding troops that would take up arms against their own today so maybe that is where obama's "civilian force" would come into play. If a "secret" govt. force were to be unleashed against the people only God knows what would happen. We should all pray that it does not ever come to that!

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

Wanting armed confrontation and feeling that there is no other option because your govt. has turned it's back on you are entirely two different things.
These are honest, hard working people that feel that they no longer are represented by their elected officials. This seems like the only option left to them.

The government has not been looking for troops to "take up arms against their own". For one thing it is illegal to use the army domestically. Obama's only "force" is the political organization Organize for America. All it does is lobby congressmen and raise money. There is no "secret government force"; that is the stuff of conspiracy buffs. The only "force" talking violence is the groups advocating for armed militias to resist the government. You didn't say this was wrong. Does that mean you support them? If you don't plainly state that you don't support armed resistance to the federal government and in fact condemn it, we have no choice but to assume you are in favor of such action.

All I want is a simple answer, not a discussion of what may or may not be or what might happen or how angry people are. Just yes or no. Do you disavow the elements of the Tea Party who are wanting to form a militia for armed resistance to the federal government?

Wanting armed confrontation and feeling that there is no other option because your govt. has turned it's back on you are entirely two different things.
These are honest, hard working people that feel that they no longer are represented by their elected officials. This seems like the only option left to them.

Then they should be informed that they do indeed have other options. First and foremost is the political option. Then there is the possibility of taking their concerns to the courts. Violent confrontation to "convince" the government is never an option, unless of course you wish our country to be run by coups and counter coups.

Wow, there sure seems to be a lot of tutelage going on about what is is.

I thought we had a government with limited powers; one which was to abide by the constitution and that the system of checks and balances ensured that the constitution would be adhered to. From what i'm reading here, it doesn't matter what the government does so long as it is endorsed by elected officials.

My question is this. Is there any circumstance which could arise from Washington which would make resistance to the federal government justifiable?

1. It must be passed by constitutionally elected congress and signed by President
2. It must withstand all court challenges, up to the supreme court if it goes that far
3. If it does that, it is constitutional no matter what your opinion may be. That is what the constitution says, not my opinion, not what I want, but what the constitution says is the legal process.

At the moment, the law people are upset about has not gone through the judicial process yet, but everything is on track as dictated by the constitution. Suits have been filed that will be heard. If your constitutionally elected congress passes it and your constitutionally elected president signs it and your constitutionally appointed supreme court approves it, then it is constitutional.

Given those circumstances, then no, there is no instance where armed rebellion is justified. Show me something that has been done where the process (not the bill, that is for the court to decide) was not constitutional. Everything has been done by the book. You and a lot of other people may not like it, but it is according to the constitution. Now if the elections in November totally turn about congress, then the new congress may change the law, if they want to. If that happens, I may be upset, but it will still be by the book.

This is what the Declaration of independence has to say about it;

The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[70]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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.


It would seem that rebellion is our Right, and perhaps our duty.