Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, August 03, 2014

The sovereign citizen movement is currently the most serious terrorism threat in the U.S., members of U.S. law enforcement agencies said in a survey conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Researchers asked 364 officers from 175 state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. "Law enforcement is much more concerned about sovereign citizens, Islamic extremists, and militia/patriot group members compared to the fringe groups of the far right, including Christian Identity believers, reconstructed traditionalists (i.e., Odinists), idiosyncratic sectarians (i.e.,survivalists), and members of doomsday cults," a report on the research states. Ranked by potential threat, sovereign citizens was first ahead of Islamic extremists, militia/patriot, racist skinheads, Neo-Nazis and extreme animal rightists, in order.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The most dangerous thing to do in this country is to get in your car. 33,000 killed in automobile accidents in 2009. Second would be working. 4,628 workers were killed on the job in 2012 and 67,000 were injured. Our police kill about one person every day in this country.

All more than the 9-11 World Trade Center attack, more than sovereign citizen Timothy McVeigh... that's what's so ridiculous about the Government reaction and expenditures against terrorism. The purpose of Government anti-terror programs is to instill fear and obedience.

#1 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-03 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

How interesting

#2 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-08-03 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Typical liberals. Americans are always the greatest thereat when these gun grabbers are in office

#3 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-03 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

And under Clinton the biggest threat was said to be gun owners and militias. This nonsense allows the real terrorist to grow.

#4 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-03 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The most dangerous thing to do in this country is to get in your car."

And that, my friends, means that, in many ways, we are doing very well as a society.

#5 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-08-03 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And that, my friends, means that, in many ways, we are doing very well as a society."

Well, either that, or, a lot, of you, drive like, idiots.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-03 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The sovereign citizens are a bunch of --------s.

#7 | Posted by squinch at 2014-08-03 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

@NUTCASE

Statistically speaking you and I are more likely to be attacked by sovereign citizen nuts than Islamist nuts.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-03 11:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

when these gun grabbers are in office

#3 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-03 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

How insane would you have to be in order to claim that gun grabbers are in office? If you're sane, wouldn't someone actually have to be taking guns before you could believe that someone is taking guns?

#9 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-04 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

BTW - Its that type of disconnected from reality paranoia that makes these people dangerous. Even if there isn't anyone doing anything to them they will rile themselves up as if someone had.

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

##4 'And under Clinton the biggest threat was said to be gun owners and militias.'

'sovereign citizen movement is currently the most serious terrorism threat'

A distinction without a difference.


#11 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-08-04 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Domestic terrorism is naturally the top terror threat to the US as: A)they are already here and B) they know how to blend in.

#12 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-04 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Any "militia" is going to be a threat to the Federal government. It's as the founders intended.

The trick for the Govt is to make the people think the militias are a threat to the people.

But the last 40 years has been designed to make us submissive and compliant and less like the "militia".

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Boaz shilling for skinheads and neo-nazis. Good werk!

#14 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Any "militia" is going to be a threat to the Federal government. It's as the founders intended.

The trick for the Govt is to make the people think the militias are a threat to the people.

But the last 40 years has been designed to make us submissive and compliant and less like the "militia".

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

The ONLY legitimate militia is each States National Gaurd

#15 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

The ONLY legitimate militia is each States National Guard

I'm glad the founding fathers disagreed with you..

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don;t believe the National Guard counts as a militia.

They are trained and paid by the government as well as the fact they answer to and serve the government, not the people. They will be called upon to put down the people should a revolt occur, not the other way around.

#17 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-04 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm glad the founding fathers disagreed with you..

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.arng.army.mil

The militia tradition meant citizens organizing themselves into military units, responsible for their own defense. Organizing the militia into regiments increased its efficiency and responsiveness, which proved critical for the defense of their communities. Its oldest units, like the one pictured above, are the oldest units in the United States military and among the oldest military units in the world.

The militia, called the National Guard since 1916, has served community, state, and nation for nearly 400 years, and citizen-soldiers have fought in every major American conflict from 1637 to present day operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Much has changed since the "first muster," but more than 370 years later, the men and women of the National Guard are still defending their neighbors – and their nation.

#18 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

'I'm glad the founding fathers disagreed with you..

#16 | Posted by boaz "

some of the founding fathers owned your ancestors. it was only after people disagreed with them that THAT practice was changed.

#19 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-04 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

some of the founding fathers owned your ancestors.

So? What's that got to do with anything? Can you please stop defaulting to a race card? It doesn't work with me..

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 | Posted by LarryMohr

You are wrong Larry. But whatever. I still have my right to own a weapon and not have to register or be oversighted by the fed govt. That would defeat the purpose of me being able to resist the fed govt.

While you may like being submissive to other's,(The govt), Larry, I do not.

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Sovereign Citizen" are scum sucking whiny loser morons, who richly deserve any crap and abuse they get.

"Law Trolls" is a term I use for them (and for some other groups).

But they are NOT even "a" Top Terror Threat in the U.S., and certainly not "the" Top Terror Threat in the U.S. Pathetic destructive parasites? Absolutely. "Terror Threat"? Barely. Individual gangs have them beat by miles, and that does not even get into actual Terror Group 'Terror Threats'.

#22 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-04 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

While you may like being submissive to other's,(The govt), Larry, I do not.

Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:33 AM | Reply

You must have liked it for 20 years Boaz.

BOOYAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#23 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 6 | Newsworthy 1

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I just love this. You think your piddly 6 shooter can outmatch the federal government?? They have the latest and greatest in fire power. You're former military so you should know what they have. They'd hose you down lickety split. HAHAHAHA People thinking they can out gun the federal government.

#24 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Can you please stop defaulting to a race card?"

you mentioned those slave-owning 'founding fathers' first, hero.

i am simply noting that sometimes they were WRONG and I gave you an example of such.

#25 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-04 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

i just went into the closet and clutched my rifle for a few seconds. i didn't expect it, but it gave me this overwhelming sense that i could resist the federal government if it came down to it.

oops. i just realized i admitted to owning a gun. i apologize if i ruined anyone's assumptions about me.

i am now gonna pull out my old man's vhs player and watch "taps", "tank" and "first blood" (one after the other) and crack into a domestic 6 pack. see ya...

#26 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-04 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

You must have liked it for 20 years Boaz

Yep, defending your freedom was a blast, I must admit. And a lot of those villages in Afghanistan, who were freed from Radical Islam liked us being there too..

you mentioned those slave-owning 'founding fathers' first, hero.

A lot of injustices have been corrected, Nerf.

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of injustices have been corrected, Nerf.

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

That was his point. Treating the founding "fathers" with religious reverence is silly considering we've had to correct plenty of their mistakes - including this horrible one.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Um, yeah. He actually wrote "slave-owning founding fathers" in his post."

No, what he did do is try to reference the "founding fathers" as an ultimate authority who can't be questioned.

So the most glaring example of the founding fathers being -------- who were wrong about things was mentioned. It was a valid response even if it contradicts your simplistic, binary world view. Don't get so angry. Simplistic, binary world views are going to conflict with reality quite often. You're in for a bumpy ride if you get upset every time it happens.

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Normal course of argument:

Conservative: The Constitution says "x"
Liberal: The Constitution also allowed slavery , you damn pro-slavery jerk.

Which should be replied to as follows "So you oppose the Freedom of Speech?"

Sorta like Godwin. Bring up the founding fathers and/or Constitution and some moron is going to accuse you of being pre-slavery.

#31 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-04 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, what he did do is try to reference the "founding fathers" as an ultimate authority who can't be questioned.

No Sully,

There's a difference between treating someone as sub-human (which slavery did) and ensuring the People are able to defend themselves from an overbearing Government. This is one right that is essential to this republic. Our founding fathers knew that.

I can make the distinction, how about you?

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

You are correct. Always looking at race ensures we will always be divided. I don't know how to stop what the democrats are doing, but the black race will always be in a corner unless we free ourselves from the Democrat Plantation.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

THE FF, G Washington, drafted all males 18+ into a nat'l militia, and ordered them to have a rifle/pistol and ammo. That's the original intent of the 2nd amendment; nothing more.

All this other gun-owning-right, pseudo 'militia' nuts, are just self-deluded gun-loving anti-government dreamers who need to throw away their tin-foil hats.

#34 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-08-04 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#31 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-04 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

That isn't what happened. Someone tried to to use "the founding fathers disagree with you" as an argument-ender. Its a crap tactic and it was called out for being as much.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I can make the distinction, how about you?

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes of course. I haven't said anything to the contrary. What I have said is that referencing the "founding fathers" as a way to settle arguments is silly. That's why people will respond by pointing out some of the revolutionary's more inexplicable flaws.

They were flawed people who had some very good ideas and some absolutely horrendous ideas about personal liberty. They never meant for themselves to be the last word on anything either. That is why the Constitution can and has been ammended.

This recent trend where people look back to the "founding fathers" for guidance on how to handle situations in the present is counter productive. They themselves would find it perplexing.

#36 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

terrorist = against the American empire

see occupy wall st.

#37 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-04 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by tmaster

Maybe it has nothing to do with who is in office and it's because we have had far more domestic non-islamist terrorists than you want to admit? Say Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are just the 'biggest' and most 'infamous' in recent times. But then you have Jerad and Amanda Miller and Dennis Marx as prime examples of domestic terrorists on a smaller scale.

Is it just coincidence they are all extremist conservatives? Is it a 'gun grabbing liberal' plot? No. Give me a break. Obama hasn't come for your guns after almost 6 years on the job and what seem like monthly massacres so let off on the partisan fear mongering.

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-04 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The purpose of Government anti-terror programs is to instill fear and obedience.

#1 | Posted by nutcase

I can think of some places in the world they would highly disagree with that and wish for our anti-terror programs...

To name just a few:
Iraq
Afghanistan
India
Pakistan
Turkey
Lebanon
China

#39 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-04 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

They themselves would find it perplexing.

I don't agree. They knew that mob democracy wasn't an answer to true freedom. They knew that keeping power as close to the local people was the answer, hence: States rights.

Liberalism and social change advocates know that some locals will not agree with their ideology, which is why they like the heavy hand of centralized government. Liberalism needs the constitution to change to become into being. That's a fact. Which is why liberals need it to be a "living document".

Living under a socialist/Marxist system isn't individual freedom. Our Founding fathers realized this.

#40 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't agree."

You don't agree that people who had their own radical ideas about government that flew in the face of hundreds of years or precedent would find it perplexing that anyone today would look back 200 years to solve all their problems?

I suppose you're entitled to your nonsensical opinions but I'm entitled to consider them ridiculous.

"Liberalism needs the constitution to change to become into being. That's a fact. Which is why liberals need it to be a "living document"

You're ignoring reality. It was always intended that the Constitution could be changed. You can pretend that's a recent, liberal idea all you want but you're factually wrong.

#41 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The greatest threat to our prosperity is Government lying.

Every sphere of American existence is defined by propaganda. Consequently, we have reached a perfect state of nihilism. We can believe nothing that we are told by government, corporations, and the presstitute media. We live in a lie, and the lie is ever expanding.

Jobs are created by hypothetical add-ons to the reported payroll figures and by inappropriate use of seasonal adjustments. Inflation is erased by substituting lower priced items in the inflation index for those that rise in price and by redefining rising prices as quality improvements. Real GDP growth is magicked into existence by deflating nominal GDP with the understated measure of inflation. Now corporations without factories are going to produce US manufacturing output, US exports, and US manufacturing jobs! (Paul Craig Roberts)

www.counterpunch.org

#42 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-04 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Since lies cannot be sustained indefinitely our Government's backup plan is more war:

If there was an anti-war movement in the US, the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 (S.2277) which will cost American taxpayers $117 billion, might be at the top of the list for defeat as a totally provocative, irrational piece of legislation that can only be viewed as paving the road for a preemptive first strike on Russia.

But as the Obama foreign policy has crossed the threshold of madness in its prevarications of geopolitical crises into costly wars and escalations of US global domination; amazingly alas, there is no anti war movement. The most militarized, most blatantly pro-war country on the planet, perhaps in the history of the world, has not one prominent voice for peace – except the American people who, in every poll, are consistently opposed to more war.

But the truly mind-numbing possibility is that an inexperienced, ineffectual President will be easily swayed to believe that the US can prevail in a limited nuclear first strike.(Renee Parsons)

www.counterpunch.org

#43 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-04 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I still have my right to own a weapon and not have to register or be oversighted by the fed govt. That would defeat the purpose of me being able to resist the fed govt.

You watch too much Fox News.

The right to bear arms is not for the purpose of resisting the Federal Government. It never was. Armed resistance would make you an enemy of the state. And you are foolish to believe such nonsense as your unregistered handgun would do you no good anyway. Our Founding Father were very clear on that when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws.

And they still do.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

were = was

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws.

The Whiskey Rebellion was localized. The 2nd amendment is for when our constitution is put aside to benefit a centralized govt or for when a King or dictator is imposed, usurping the will of all the people.

#46 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Every sphere of American existence is defined by propaganda. Consequently, we have reached a perfect state of nihilism. We can believe nothing that we are told by government, corporations, and the presstitute media. We live in a lie, and the lie is ever expanding."

That's right. Every institution in America has been corrupted by commodity capitalism. Every individual is treated like a commodity and acts like a commodity. When Wall Street bankers aren't prosecuted everyone acts like them.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-04 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Whiskey Rebellion was localized. The 2nd amendment is for when our constitution is put aside to benefit a centralized govt or for when a King or dictator is imposed, usurping the will of all the people.

#46 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually if you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks. The second Amendment was for disputes between the states and defending against the native Americans labeled savages back then.

#48 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 2nd amendment is for when our constitution is put aside to benefit a centralized govt or for when a King or dictator is imposed, usurping the will of all the people.

#46 | Posted by boaz

What a load of Malarky.

That is what Congress and the Supreme Court are for. Checks and Balances. Remember? Legislative, Executive, and Judicial? These three branches are not independent of one another because the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to help ensure that no one branch became too powerful. Each branch has powers that it can use to check and balance the operations and power of the other two branches.

Government 101.

Your little pop gun is useless in that arena. You would be squished like a bug.

You really need to stop watching Glenn Beck. It is rotting your brain.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

These three branches are not independent of one another because the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to help ensure that no one branch became too powerful.

That has worked real well in the Obama era, hasn't it? You actually think the Judicial (holder) is separate from the executive in this presidency? Do you really think Holder would bring charges against Obama for anything?

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually if you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks. The second Amendment was for disputes between the states and defending against the native Americans labeled savages back then.

#48 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2014-08-04 01:48 PM | FLAG:

Actually if you REALLY, REALLY want to get down to brass tacks. The second amendment was to allow property owners the ability to protect their property. Property rights and 1 of the 3 pillars of the US constitution.

#51 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-04 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Federal workers do sometimes do boneheaded things."
~Anonymous Harvard Constitutional Professor.

#52 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-08-04 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boaz - do you really think you were protecting our freedom by enlisting as a soldier?

Give me one example of a freedom you ensured.

I'm ex-military too but that is one low self-esteem justification for one's life ever muttered.

You were a pawn.

#53 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-08-04 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

That has worked real well in the Obama era, hasn't it? You actually think the Judicial (holder) is separate from the executive in this presidency? Do you really think Holder would bring charges against Obama for anything?

#50 | Posted by boaz

Silly bug.

Why would the attorney General Holder bring charges against the President? He is part of the Executive Branch and works for the President.

Government 101.

Blame our Do Nothing Congress for allowing the President to become more powerful than Congress (if that is what you are inferring).

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would the attorney General Holder bring charges against the President? He is part of the Executive Branch and works for the President.

Government 101.

Blame our Do Nothing Congress for allowing the President to become more powerful than Congress (if that is what you are inferring).

Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 08:16 PM | Reply

That's suing yourself. Which is crazy idea that Boaz thought of it.

#55 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boaz - do you really think you were protecting our freedom by enlisting as a soldier?

Give me one example of a freedom you ensured.

I'm ex-military too but that is one low self-esteem justification for one's life ever muttered.

You were a pawn.

-------------------

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier

#56 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-04 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 Wasn't Smedley a communist?

He sure sounded like one.

#57 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought Godwin was a fascist? Much in the mold of teahadists/sovereign citizens movement....

#58 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2014-08-04 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK, I looked it up. Smedley gave speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930's, but wasn't a card carrier.

#59 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 10:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Absurdly these Political Correctness nuts target sovereign citizens (that few if any have ever heard of, let alone as being violent) as problematic when they have nothing to say about the many thousands of ethnic minority urban street gangs that regularly kill for fun and pillage inner city businesses and residents and fill our prisons.

Apparently focusing on the real criminal gang bangers doesn't fit with their racist political agenda which is always to get only those who happen to represent an ethnicity they hate and one that has no special protection.

#60 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-04 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK, I looked it up. Smedley gave speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930's, but wasn't a card carrier.

------------

He spent 33 years as a yes man in the army. Your pitiful attempt at poisoning the well fails.

#61 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-05 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Sovereign Citizens Top Terror Threat in U.S."

Sovereign citizens? We can't just call them "self-absorbed whackjobs" anymore?
So tired of this PC crap...

#62 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-08-05 03:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Any "militia" is going to be a threat to the Federal government. It's as the founders intended.

BOAZ

Were you off (doing the dirty with you-know-who-from-DR) the week they held the classes on the history of the Constitution and the creation of a 'well regulated militia' (1777 and 1787) that could be called up from 'well regulated and organized' state militias for land defense, as needed? The one our founding fathers ensured would be armed, then stay armed when they purposefully included the 2nd Amendment (1789) in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) to make sure no one would take the militia's guns and swords away?

"A threat to the federal government"? I'll help you out here, 'cause you're kind of clueless on this:

- In 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a "confederal militia"... sufficiently armed and accoutered ... and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

"Confederal", under this Article, created, when needed, a national force from sanctioned and organized state militias.

- In 1787, when the founding founders wrote the Constitution, we still didn't have an Army (and wouldn't until 1796). Under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the United States Constitution, they granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", creating the first semblance of a national land force that, when needed, could be called into service, and under the control of the U.S. Government. A threat?

- In 1789, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) the 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure the "well regulated militia" they created ("well regulated militia") could not have their arms taken away from them. A threat to the government? Hardly so. "The Government" created the militia (state militias brought under federal control when needed) they now guaranteed would be armed.

- The U.S. Army was created in 1796 ...

The founding fathers hardly viewed the militias>national militia they created as a 'threat'.

#63 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 05:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

BOAZ

PS - They'd roll over in their graves if they could have conceived, when writing the 2nd Amendment, that ANTI-American, conspiracy nut, wacko Idaho militias being armed to the teeth with the kind of guns we have today - hardly the muskets and swords of their time.

Ya, they'd be afraid of THOSE militias. Not the ones they specifically created and guaranteed would be armed for the defense of The United States.

#64 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 05:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#63: 200+ years of history show that your interpretation is incorrect.

#65 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-08-05 07:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I just love this. You think your piddly 6 shooter can outmatch the federal government?? They have the latest and greatest in fire power. You're former military so you should know what they have. They'd hose you down lickety split. HAHAHAHA People thinking they can out gun the federal government.

#24 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

Not saying any kind of revolt would be successful, especially in the pampered & distracted US but if it ever got to it, it would likely be bloody on both sides. Unconventional war can be a b*(ch against conventional forces, hell you just need to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam to see that.

#66 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-08-05 07:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

right...and every mass killing is done by a christian, tea party conservative, anti obama America killing agenda racist.

more garbage meant to change the subject.

#67 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-05 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Replace 'sovereign' with 'average' and headline will be spot on.

#68 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-05 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just love this. You think your piddly 6 shooter can outmatch the federal government?? They have the latest and greatest in fire power. You're former military so you should know what they have. They'd hose you down lickety split. HAHAHAHA People thinking they can out gun the federal government.
#24 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

The "federal govm't" isn't the issue. Those "running" the "federal govm't bureaucracies" should respect the citizens of this nation. And they do not. They should be in fear and are not because the media shills are in their corner and are more interested in preserving their access to the bureaucracies than they are in fulfilling their obligation as the 4th estate. The same media shills who hide behind 'freedom of the press' when it suits their agenda.

#69 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ya, they'd be afraid of THOSE militias. Not the ones they specifically created and guaranteed would be armed for the defense of The United States.

#64 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2014-08-05 05:24 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

If what you are saying is true, once the foreign threat to the US passed, why didn't they pass laws to collect the arms from the citizens and place them in storage for the 'next' conflict? The presidents could have issued fiats, like are done today.

#70 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#64 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2014-08-05 05:24 AM | REPLY | FLAG:
Wrong.

On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense, adopting the state militia forces already in place outside Boston (22,000 troops) and New York (5,000).

The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states. General George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the army throughout the war.

#71 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

If what you are saying is true, once the foreign threat to the US passed, why didn't they pass laws to collect the arms from the citizens and place them in storage for the 'next' conflict? The presidents could have issued fiats, like are done today.

#70 | Posted by RobThomas

I can't speak for what they didn't do, only what they actually did.

#63: 200+ years of history show that your interpretation is incorrect.

#65 | Posted by Daniel

You're free to disagree with history, but it is what it is.

#72 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're free to disagree with history, but it is what it is.

It is what it is.

If the danger of a standing army was to be limited, the militia, which was then under the control of the states, must be available to meet national emergencies until an adequate standing army could be raised. Thus, the national government needed the power to call upon the militia. Conversely, the existence of a militia independent of federal control was deemed necessary as a check on the standing army which Congress was authorized to raise.129 The resolution was to provide Congress with the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia and to govern such parts as may be called into federal service, but to reserve to the states the appointment of officers and actual training of the militia.130 The drafters of this particular language hastened to point out that the power to organize, arm, and discipline was intended only to allow Congress to prescribe the proportion of men to officers, specify the kind and size of arms, ensure that men were armed in fact either by themselves, the states, or by Congress, and to prescribe exercises.131 The States were to be in control of the militia by reason of the power to appoint officers and provide for the actual training.132 The national government would be in control of the militia only when the militia was called out for national service and, even then, would have to rely on the State appointed officers to execute its orders. www.constitution.org

#73 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

How insane would you have to be in order to claim that gun grabbers are in office? If you're sane, wouldn't someone actually have to be taking guns before you could believe that someone is taking guns?

#9 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-08-04 09:08 AM | FLAG:

That's awesome "logic"! That means despite my openly espousing sex with women, it's no longer "sane" to call me a heterosexual unless I'm actually presently having sex with a woman.

#74 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-05 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the SHTF the Constitution, along with Congress, will be suspended.

#75 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-05 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

...whatever was "intended" by the founding fathers will all be moot. political discussion will be over. soldiers who refuse orders will be thrown into the camp with all of us or shot.

#76 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-05 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK, I looked it up. Smedley gave speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930's, but wasn't a card carrier.

------------

He spent 33 years as a yes man in the army. Your pitiful attempt at poisoning the well fails.

#61 | Posted by Shawn

Hardly. He was a US Marine. We are honored to claim him as one of our own. One of the Few, the proud and one of the bravest.

At the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

A true Warriors Warrior. A true hero. You don't get that many medals of honor in the Marines being a "Yes Man".

By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.

en.wikipedia.org

I think you should listen to him. If he had been in charge of me and told me to shoot you I would not hesitate.

Semper Fi.

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-05 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#71 | Posted by RobThomas

Not wrong ...

The Second Continental Congress wasn't disbanded until 1781.

1777 is before 1781. Any issue with history should be taken up with historians.

- In 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a "confederal militia"... sufficiently armed and accoutered ... and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

#78 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#78

You seem to be cherry picking your source which, apparently, is Wikipedia (great for finding the ball park but not much more) seemingly to imply the militia is a federal invention. It was not. In particular, you cherry picked the italicized quote and excised that the "confederal" militia was a state organization imposed by the Continental Congress.

It remains such today. Take your own advice.

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

ET AL

Blame the source. Soooo typical. American history is American history.

If you find some alternate version of American history that disputes anything I block quoted, help yourself.

I'm not going to bother including 98 links to various sources with the same history for the benefit of fools.

#80 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The States were to be in control of the militia by reason of the power to appoint officers and provide for the actual training.132 The national government would be in control of the militia only when the militia was called out for national service and, even then, would have to rely on the State appointed officers to execute its orders."

Yeah, and how would that have worked out on D-day?

#81 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#80

I'm guessing about your source because you have not provided one but given your response, sounds like a guilty dog. Dispute, see what you excised from wiki and 73.

#82 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, and how would that have worked out on D-day?

Gee Danni, I don't know about militia participation in D-Day. Why don't you research it for us. Just don't cherry pick. Pay particular attention to the constitutional construct of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 and 16. Those basically say day to day control of the militia rests with the states except when called into service of the federal government by the President.

#83 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those state militias were 'pro-government', lawful, and 'well regulated' by their respective state governments, armed with muskets and swords.

Not ad hoc groups of highly armed anti-government crazies.

#84 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#84

Okay, how is that any different than the current militia, rogues aside?

#85 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Be sure and explain how the quality of weaponry today, as opposed to 200 years ago, impacts the constitutional construct.

#86 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-05 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort