OK State Militia WTF ?????

[SnowDog]

Seriously, is this what it's coming to????

OK Legislature and Tea Party leaders are going to try and form an armed militia to protect them from the Federal Govn't. (I guess you need armed citizens to protect you from healthcare reform :confused:.)

What is wrong with these people, Do they really want to start fighting with federal troops and start a 2nd Civil War?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/politics/main6391710.shtml

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.

In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.

Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.

Some conservative legislators in Oklahoma say talk of a militia, which would be privately recruited, armed and trained, goes too far.

"If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."

Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.

Federal authorities say that radical militia groups have not emerged in Oklahoma, unlike many other states, in part because of the legacy of the Oklahoma City bombing. On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Tim McVeigh exploded a truckbomb outside the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Last month, FBI agents conducted a raid on the Hutaree militia group in southern Michigan and accused members of plotting to kill law enforcement officers.

[MasterKiller]

It's a plant!

[SnowDog]

That's right, it must be "Liberals" who infiltrated their State Govn't and called their friends in the "Liberal Media" to make the Tea-Party look bad.

[1bad65]

The Constitution gives them every right to do this. What's the problem here?

[SanHeChuan]

The Constitution gives them every right to do this. What's the problem here?

The problem is that there is no way a militia can compete with the military, and the states should not be trying to use armed force in legal and political battles. What happens when a weak force tries to battle a strong force, TERRORISM, because that’s the only way they can really make any impact. Should Oklahoma become Northern Ireland? Should they use state taxes to duplicate an existing function, I thought the tea party was for less taxes and smaller government?

[kfson]

The Constitution gives them every right to do this. What's the problem here?

We don't follow the Constitution any more. What's wrong with you? Get with the program. Are you an idiot? Have you been living under a rock or in a van down by the river?

[1bad65]

The problem is that there is no way a militia can compete with the military, and the states should not be trying to use armed force in legal and political battles. What happens when a weak force tries to battle a strong force, TERRORISM, because that’s the only way they can really make any impact. Should Oklahoma become Northern Ireland? Should they use state taxes to duplicate an existing function, I thought the tea party was for less taxes and smaller government?

So we should void the Constitution and Bill of Rights because of what might happen?

[solo1]

I believe its called the Second Amendment. Its the one the government fears the most. Which explains why the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the populace.

[1bad65]

I believe its called the Second Amendment. Its the one the government fears the most. Which explains why the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the populace.

100% true. Every country Hitler invaded did not have an armed populace. Switzerland did, and Hitler didn't invade them....

If you learn one thing from history, fear those who wish to disarm the populace. Tyrants always prefer unarmed peasants.

[dimethylsea]

The Constitution gives them every right to do this. What's the problem here?

This is correct. They arguably have the right to do this without the state legislature's approval.

If they do have their state legislature's approval they can raise an army provided they can fund it.

The constitution is pretty clear on this. The Federal government is not the only lawful military force in the Republic. The states have the right to their own military forces also, constituted however they like.

I'm not sure whether states have the right to conscript troops from their citizenry.. but the fact remains.. just because a states power has been largely dormant for a century doesn't mean it's still not their right...

[David Jamieson]

:rolleyes:

it's a lame-o secessionist wet dream. period.

[dimethylsea]

Not really. What it is is a temper tantrum.

The states DO have the right to raise their own armies.

Just like the fed has the right to slash federal funding to a given uncooperative state government.


That's why the states stopped having armies and let the Fed do it.. cause it was expensive :D

[SanHeChuan]

So we should void the Constitution and Bill of Rights because of what might happen?

No but we should be wary of people's intentions. What is the purpose of this militia? The Article suggests it is to do battle with the federal government, do you support this? An armed revolt because of a political defeat? And should we not point out the hypocrisy of an organization that claims it wants less taxes and less government trying to duplicate an existing government function.

[kfson]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/TXSG_logo.png

[David Jamieson]

No but we should be wary of people's intentions. What is the purpose of this militia? The Article suggests it is to do battle with the federal government, do you support this? An armed revolt because of a political defeat? And should we not point out the hypocrisy of an organization that claims it wants less taxes and less government trying to duplicate an existing government function.

STOP MAKING SENSE!!! It confuses the hillbillies and makes them have to think! :D

[1bad65]

No but we should be wary of people's intentions. What is the purpose of this militia?

Who cares what it's purpose is. The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this. It never mentions "intentions". It does however, use the term "shall not be infringed". It's not this hard to grasp, is it?

[SanHeChuan]

Who cares what it's purpose is. The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this. It never mentions "intentions". It does however, use the term "shall not be infringed". It's not this hard to grasp, is it?

Nobody is saying they can't, we are just saying it's stupid.
And intentions do matter because battle with the government is illegal.
It's not this hard to grasp, is it?

Just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it.
See westboro baptist WTF (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56929)

[kfson]

STOP MAKING SENSE!!! It confuses the hillbillies and makes them have to think! :D

There are unconfused hillbillies in the OK Ozarks and Ouachita mountains that have very little trust in the current federal government. That is their legal choice.

[1bad65]

And intentions do matter because battle with the government is illegal.
It's not this hard to grasp, is it?

But that is not their intent. Look, they are going about it upfront, and through the political process. Just because you don't like their political views, you have a problem with this.


Just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it.
See westboro baptist WTF (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56929)

There actually are laws concerning protests that the Westboro cult has to abide by.

[David Jamieson]

There are unconfused hillbillies in the OK Ozarks and Ouachita mountains that have very little trust in the current federal government. That is their legal choice.

It's everyone's choice to not trust their government or trust it.

Here's the rub. How is it that this militia minded group sees it that they have the final word? What about all the People in Oklahoma, very likely the majority are in favour of the current system?

Has there even been something as simple as a straw poll or do these folks think it's just ok to go ahead and arm themselves and make war on their own federal government without the consent of the people? Because that is counter to the Bill of Rights, Counter to the Constitution and counter to logical and disciplined thinking.

Did they even bother to ask the people of Oklahoma if their half baked over emotional hate party was Ok with the rest of the good people of Oklahoma?

[SnowDog]

Who cares what it's purpose is. The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this. It never mentions "intentions". It does however, use the term "shall not be infringed". It's not this hard to grasp, is it?


Actually that is kind of a Grey area.......the 2nd ammendment enforces the right to bear arms because a militia is important and may be needed (so you can take your own gun when a militia is called apon), it nowhere states that the individual states can CREATE their own militias.

Infact if you look at the body of the Consitituion regarding militias it's a different story.


Article 1 Sec 8 - "Powers of Congress"

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article 1 Sec 10 - "Powers Prohibited of States"

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

------- So per the body of the Constitution Congress has the rights to create the militia ONLY for suppressing Insurection or Invasion, they also control organizing, arming and dicipline of the militias. The only power given to the states is to appoint the officers and training authority (but has to adhere to what Congress put forth)

Then you notice they are prohibited from Keeping Troops or War Ships during a time of peace. So, Creating their own militia funded by the state would essentially be creating their own state army - which is illegal, without the consent of the US Congress.

Article 3 Sec 3 - "Treason"

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort


----- And if they are saying that the Militia is to do battle with the Federal Government that by the Constitution is an act of treason (levying of War)

[kfson]

It's everyone's choice to not trust their government or trust it.

Here's the rub. How is it that this militia minded group sees it that they have the final word? What about all the People in Oklahoma, very likely the majority are in favour of the current system?



I don't know the specifics, but to be legal, it would seem the citizens of OK would have to approve such a militia and if so, that is their right.

[1bad65]

Here's the rub. How is it that this militia minded group sees it that they have the final word?

They are going through legal channels, the state legislature. Did you miss that part?


What about all the People in Oklahoma, very likely the majority are in favour of the current system?

The majority of Americans were against Obamacare, and you saw what the left did there. Try again.


Has there even been something as simple as a straw poll or do these folks think it's just ok to go ahead and arm themselves and make war on their own federal government without the consent of the people? Because that is counter to the Bill of Rights, Counter to the Constitution and counter to logical and disciplined thinking.

I must have missed the "make war on their own federal government without the consent of the people" part of the article. Can you point that out please?

[David Jamieson]

They are going through legal channels, the state legislature. Did you miss that part? said they are talking to supportive legislators. Doesn't mean they are going through legal channels. What happens if that fails?




The majority of Americans were against Obamacare, and you saw what the left did there. Try again.
No, you and some others were against universal healthcare in the USA. Maybe the majority of republicans were against it, but that's not the majority of americans and I'm pretty sure that the 45 million americans who had no coverage were probably mostly for it. But you're making it up to say that the majority of americans were against it. Majority supported it by way of their representative and senator it would seem to me.



I must have missed the "make war on their own federal government without the consent of the people" part of the article. Can you point that out please? When they say: create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty. exactly what is being infringed upon? state sovereignity? They do realize that their state through their hat into the federal system right?

I guess you can read it however you like it.

It looks like a small vocal group of people want to arm up and use the old democratic bullets on the government they don't trust despite having elected it. :rolleyes:

You know what needs to be said? The same thing bushies said when we were all putting up with his and cheneys crap.

"Just eat it, you lost the election".

I'm sure if those people in Oklahoma want to make a real difference then they can do it like everyone else.

Vote.

[SanHeChuan]

But that is not their intent.

What then is their intent then? Besides hypocrisy...

[1bad65]

said they are talking to supportive legislators. Doesn't mean they are going through legal channels. What happens if that fails?

How is going through the legislature not considered going through legal channels? :confused:

Who knows what happens? But we can't pass laws based on "mights" or "ifs".


I guess you can read it however you like it.

I read it how it was written. And it never said anything about making war on the Federal Gov't.


"Just eat it, you lost the election".

I think Al Gore should have taken that advice.


Vote.

Oh, people will be voting in November. ;)

[1bad65]

What then is their intent then? Besides hypocrisy...

Your logic and reading comprehension are as messed up as that first sentence.

[Reality_Check]

The majority of Americans were against Obamacare, and you saw what the left did there.

Except a good chunk of that majority didn't think the bill went far enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_obama_011110.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody


Do you think the changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress go too far in trying to provide health insurance to as many Americans as possible, don't go far enough, or are the changes about right?

Go too far 32
Don't go far enough 35
About right 22
Not clear yet (vol.) 2
Don't know/No answer 9

Do you think the changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress go too far in trying to control costs, don't go far enough, or are the changes about right?

Go too far 24
Don't go far enough 39
About right 21
Not clear yet (vol.) 2
Don't know/No answer 14

Do you think the changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress go too far in trying to regulate the health insurance industry, don't go far enough, or are the changes about right?

Go too far 27
Don't go far enough 43
About right 18
Not clear yet (vol.) 2
Don't know/No answer 10

[SanHeChuan]

Your logic and reading comprehension are as messed up as that first sentence.

Bad grammar aside. :D


Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

How would a militia help defend state sovereignty without the use of force?

[dimethylsea]

Article 3 Sec 3 - "Treason"

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort


----- And if they are saying that the Militia is to do battle with the Federal Government that by the Constitution is an act of treason (levying of War)

Actually not quite.

There is a circumstance in which it is perfectly constitutional to levy war against the Federal Government... and that circumstance is when the Fed is violating the Constitution.

The Federal government derives it's entire mandate to power from the Constitution.. if it oversteps those bounds.. then it is not treason to levy war against it, nor is it treason to give Aid and Comfort to the enemies of the Federal government.

It is almost 100% in my mind (and keep in mind I'm a liberal at the ballotbox) that any actions of the militia against the Federals would be "under the colors of adherence to the Constitution".

Basically you can call them rebels, or even extremists.. but they aren't traitors (even if actively firing on US military forces) so long as their stated intent is to uphold the Constitution.

For instance.. the South in the Civil War was not an "act of treason". It was "an act of insurrection or rebellion". It's a subtle difference but one that everyone (even those like me who think 90% of the Tea Party folks are bloody idiots) should keep in mind.

As long as they are pushing states rights and Constitutionalism and their actions are restricted to a state government's territory, AND they have the support of that state's legislature.. they are NOT traitors. You can't call that treason.

Now if they decided to sell US military secrets to the highest bidder for money, or sold out the country to communists for ideological reasons (i.e. the highest law of the land, the Constitution, wasn't part of their platform).. well THEN you could make the case for treason.

It's sort of like a cop who opens fire on a military person. He may be foolish, or mistaken, or something.. but he's not guilty of treason.. he's obeying the law AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT.

[David Jamieson]

so if oklahoma starts a war of insurrection and loses, what happens then?

It would appear to me that these folks simply don't understand the democratic process and want to be dictatorial and instead of working within the democratic process,they want to step outside of it and force their ways onto everyone else.

there was a vote, the vote passed, the end. that's democracy.

what's not to get here?

[1bad65]

Except a good chunk of that majority didn't think the bill went far enough.

We shall see in November. ;)

[1bad65]

How would a militia help defend state sovereignty without the use of force?

You don't have to defend if you are not attacked.

[1bad65]

It would appear to me that these folks simply don't understand the democratic process and want to be dictatorial and instead of working within the democratic process,they want to step outside of it and force their ways onto everyone else.

So what laws are they trying to get on the books through use of force?


there was a vote, the vote passed, the end. that's democracy.

what's not to get here?

And these people are trying to get the State Legislature to vote on this. So why is a vote/election good in one instance, but not in this instance?

[SanHeChuan]

You don't have to defend if you are not attacked.

Why would the fed attack Oklahoma? :rolleyes:

[dimethylsea]

so if oklahoma starts a war of insurrection and loses, what happens then?

It would appear to me that these folks simply don't understand the democratic process and want to be dictatorial and instead of working within the democratic process,they want to step outside of it and force their ways onto everyone else.

there was a vote, the vote passed, the end. that's democracy.

what's not to get here?

Actually a true war of insurrection is vanishingly unlikely. What is much more possible is a scenario in which Oklahoma or some other area of the US basically go into "we ain't gonna do that" mode.. where various attempts at frustration, stonewalling, etc. happen.

Less probable than that is a two-sided low level hostility, where certain areas go into "we ain't gonna do that" mode and then the Fed calls their bluff and starts using all discretionary powers short of martial law and sending in the troops to put them down.

Some possibilities for the Fed..
1.) Stop federal payouts to all Oklahoma state entities.
2.) Install state border checkpoints.
3.) Tell USDOT to begin "aggressive" logistics and transportation management (i.e. make life hell for anyone who wants to drive semi trucks into or especially through Oklahoma)
4.) Deny federal contracts to all companies domiciled in the problem area.
5.) Stop payouts for pensions, Social Security etc. to persons who have them deposited in an Oklahoma bank account.

Lots of things. I'm sure the bright boys at the Fed could think of quite a few more if the political will was there to do it.