This is the log of a discussion held on the channel #GeekSpeak on the Undernet on January 19, 1996. The copyright to this log is owned by Pankaj Saxena (pankaj@uic.edu) and Tom Wright (tlwright@umich.edu), who own the channel. This log may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without the prior written permission of the owners. Note: Lines beginning with ">" are from Subetai. IRC log started Fri Jan 19 22:13 > Militias are a group of people who arm themselves and band together in response to perceived threats from the government. I like Sub's def'n better. from the gov't, or threats, in general? (threats real or perceived) > Clay: I think from the govt. Or else you'd call them vigilantes. well, there have been instances of certain militias commiting acts of vigilantism I think these people (rightly) sense that the government is somewhat out of control, and dangerous in its current state. Okay. Perhaps, they have, but let's focus on the government Why do they fear the government? (see above :) What has caused these fears? > Does our definition of a militia accurately represent militias as they are today? Baz: Name a few specific reasons to fear the US gov't Subetai: Good question Wright - trampling all over the constitution (search & siezure, free speech, etc.) (it's my view that one should _always_ be wary of the government) Groups of people organized especually for the contingency of overthrowing a potetnually tyranical gov. Wright: civil forfeiture > Wright: Do you man "fear that cannot be redressed through means other than arming themselves"? > Because fear of the govt. (or wariness) does not directly lead to joining a militia. Subetai: not necessarily. Right now I'm asking, do they have good reason to fear the gov't? > I think they have reason to be cautious, yes. Sub - perhaps they feel they don't have a voice in politics. How does militias differ from a revolutionary movment? Less philosophical? More shortranged or what? Any more evidence of government abuse? I want you to get more specific > Baz: So you're saying they think they have no other means except to arm themselves. Ruby Ridge, for instance The militia movement is far more short sighted than a actual revolution. wright- because the power of the government continues to increase over time the militias believe other means of redressing have been ineffective. regulation increases, freedom decreases Wright - I believe they do have reason to fear the United States. I think we all do. The whole "Drug War" is an abomination, and the Constitutional violations committed in its name are staggering "Gov. no longer responsible to electorate." They also think the courts have co-opted the constitution Wright: There have been cases where the IRS has abused it's power in collecting taxes...that's a reason to fear the government. What about gun control laws? Are they cause for fear? paulf- right. We end up relying on the ACLU to protect our individual rights on many cases, and they aren't legally potent Wright: The violation of property rights by the EPA. > Depends on your viewpoint on gun-control. Okay. I think that we've established that there is reason to fear the gov't Note that the militias are good at saying what they are against, but not too clear on what they are for...therefore, they are very dangerous. Wright - yes. Tyrants don't like an armed populace. Wright - I'd like to make a point about fearing the government. yes, militia define themselves with a negative. (before we move on). Baz: Go ahead TomM- overall perhaps, but not without exception TomM: Please, let's take this discussion one step at a time; let's not jump ahead. Wright is asking for any reasons that someone might validly be afraid of today's government. Baz? We've mentioned some _specific_ instances of government abuse here. It should be noted that a government is a monopoly of power, and as such is "inherently" dangerous. The government should always be watched carefully, because politicians aren't perfect. wright- militias perceive gun control as eliminating the possibility of a citizen's revolt baz: That's an important point baz- why do these specific instances of abuse happen? Since individual rights are not fully protected by our government, there is reason for concern. Okay. Let's move on KJ often because certain people w/in the government THINK they can get away with certain things. KJ - corrupt philosophy, and a tendency of the mainstream media to whitewash government actions. It takes a really grievous abuse to get the media interested. (No reported wants to get kicked out of the White House press pool) (But I digress) > I guess we're agreed on the fact that the govt. needs to be watched. But we haven't drawn a relationship between that and the way militias choose to do it. That is, being prepared for armed resistance. Basically, I think the militias (for the most part) have come to the conclusion that all might be lost, so they are preparing for an armed 'revolt". Next. What are the activities of the Militia movement? What do they do when they get together? wright- they swap paranoid stories and shoot guns Becuase they believe that the govt is no longer a protector of rights, that it is a violator of rights. That the govt has lost it's legitimacy. > Pseudo-military exercises. Talk. Drink. Swap grassy-knoll stories. Wright: They play with big guns and little guns...and grossly mis-interpret the Constitution. Tom: Do they? How do they mis-interpret it? Have an example or two? stevenh- i disagree. If they believed the government has lost its legitimacy, then they would feel justified in destroying it. Do they ever discuss what they expect to do ~after~ they restore faith, mom, and apple pie? Tom - I'd say that most militia people understand it better than Ted Kennedy :-\ What do _they_ think they're doing? bazyar: That is besides the point... Wright: Who here has studied the activities of any militia? Jim: I have quite a bit of knowledge about the MI Militia Jim - you've never read American Rifleman? :) Does anyone actually KNOW what is done by these groups - or is this mostly hearsay and speculation? I think some do feel justified. For instance, many militas believe they have the right to bear arms, even to the point of having private standing armies (not in the Constitution). Tom: Does the militia consitiute a private army? Wright - lets hear some of what you know about the activities of the MI Militia then bls: Later wright - ok Tom - the Constitution doesn't say "you have the right to bear arms, unless more than two of you get together, then you go to jail" blspro: Good question. Wright: If the "army" is not under the aspices of any legitimate government, then, yes, it becomes a private army by default. BillC: they plan on putting government officials on trial for treason to start. hearsay, but not specualtion. Tom - further, the constitution applies to the construction of the government. It is not an exhaustive "list of rights of the people". > Why not discuss this in terms of principles? (1) The right to bear arms (2) Banding together for a cause (3) being prepared for armed resistance against the government. Ghaki: I saw that too. bazyar: Only the government has a monopoly on the use of arms. > Tom: No, Ghaki - who said that - and what source do you get that info? Tom: I disagree with that > Tom: On the use of force. Remember that the Constitution is about the powers of the government, not about how citizens can violate the law. The constitution is clear that the government is not to have the power to prevent the citizens from bearing arms, but it does have the power to regulate those arms when used for military action. Use of arms/use of force...same thing. Should the connection of white supremacists to the militia movement be mentioned, or is that nonessential? Tom: Not really > Tom: No. You can use arms in self defence, sporting, hobby, etc. bls: ABC Jim: And what do you call the militia? Tom, you are making self defense the exception, right>? Bill: of course. blspro: talk.politics.guns, alt.conspiracy, and some of the rallys locally Okay. Hold up here. (and hunting and the like...but that is not what the militias are for). ghaki - thank you for the source - do you know if these were milita members stating these things? We have established that the militia trains for possible future action against the gov't > sporting = hunting, target shooting, etc. Subetai: sure. > So the govt. does not have a monopoly on the use of arms. Let's not get into guns just yet TomM: There are provisions in the constitution for state regulate militias that aren't regulated by the federal government unless in defense of the nation. blspro: to be honest, I don't remember, it's been a while. > Okay, Wright. Ghaki - ok Jim: it is clear that the militias (as outlined by the constitution) can occur only under the auspices of sofme local *government* authority. Wright: Perhaps you should get the discussion back on course. Here's what we have so far: (like the State government, or the sheriff,... many in the militia govt hold that the sheriff is there commander. TomM- the context of the constitution was any local government Tom, that's just it... would they put themselves under elected civilian control? The militia is a group of men, concerned about gov't abuses of rights, and many of these concerns are legit Otherwise, there is no legal difference between a militia and a gang carrying guns. govt=movement Bill: Probably not...which is the danger. All right.. hold on a minute, please! tomM- correct KJ: The context of the constitution was federal, it is about the powers of the federal government and its relationship to state governments. Tom - incorrect. The "militias" haven't committed a crime, and don't intend to. bazyar: To the extent they are not governed by at least the local authorities, they are illegal. TomM: I explicitely said your point about local goverment when I talked about the provisions in the constitution. These men train for *possible* action against the gov't at some point in the future (presumably if the gov't attempts to take away more rights) jim- militias on those days were not all state regulated > Okay, next point, Wright. Tom - a bunch of guys getting together to practice shooting is illegal? action againt the federal govt, not local. TomM: But the possession of arms isn't what is regulated, but the use of arms. bazyar: Don't drop context...we are not talking about guys doing target practice alone. KJ: I'm only talking about the provisions in the constitution, not whether or not all militias were thereby state regulated. Okay. I'm regaining control here > The +m is a sign that Wright wants to move on. I'll respond to TomM's statement later :) Okay, as I was saying We know what these people are doing. Should the gov't move to stop it? If so, explain how they are a threat to individuals > (We have a 1 hour limit on the scheduled discussion and Wright wants to cover the points he prepared - plenty of time for more discussion after that :) Wright: What is it we said the militias are currently doing that needs to be stopped? Wright: So long as the militias make it explicit that they are against the government per se, then the government has the obligation to move in and uphold the law. Training for a *possible* conflict with the gov't Wright - the gov't should only intervene if they get information that indicates that a particular group is in the process of taking some military action. > You can stop them on two possible points: (1) weapons (2) explicit statement that they are preparing to resist the govt. Tom: what should it do? Arrest these people? On what grounds? Tom - so the government should arrest people based on their _philosophy_, that they oppose the actions of the government? The govt should stop violating individual rights. Therefore, taking away all militias reason to be. bazyar: I would say that so long as a state or local government is not taking the stance that the feds ought to be fought with force (i.e. civil war), then when a militia leader states he's arming *against* the feds, he should be shut down. Steve: Now there's an answer I like Steven: you really think that would stop *all* militias? Tom: They say that they are arming against possible transgressions of rights in the future TomM: They aren't claiming to arm for initiating force against the federal government, but to defend themselves should force be initiated against them without just cause. wright- is there something wrong with being prepared? Kj: I never said that space: it would remove all legitimate reasons for the existence of militias TomM: At least the people I've talked with who I knew to be in militias (though I met them in other contexts.) Wright: Sure, nothing wrong with "being prepared" but some of their explicit statements show a lack of respect for due process. stevenh- there is no way to 'take away all militias' without violating those very rights > Here's the point that needs to be discussed: what does a government do when a bunch of people arm and train together with the express purpose of resisting it's lawfully constituted authority based on whatever they believe? Tom - politicians like to cover up abuses of rights by "Due Process" Force is not the answer to our dilema of our governemnt acting against individual rights. KJ makes a good point. Is there something wrong with being prepared to defnd your rights agianst a tyranical gov't ? TomR: they believe due process has failed them. Subetai: **That** should be the primary question here. KJ: I said take away their legitimate reason to be. Sub: The goverment moves to stop them, and if the militas is strong enough it'll be a civil war. I think not. The primary question is what is morally correct > Fredrik: I mean philosophically, what should be. Wright: No, there. However, the U.S. gov. is far from tyranical. Wright: No, there isn't. However, the U.S. gov. is far from tyranical. Wright: defending your rights against a tyrannical govt is a moral action. Wright - Right. The government's authority comes from the individual citizens of the country. If the government steps outside its bounds, the moral thing to do is to take it out. Dino: It is not tyranical.. I don't know about how far from it it is Wright - I think the militias sense that the current government isn't guided by proper principles.. only by inertia. Sub: they don't believe the govt is operating under its lawfully constituted grounds. bazyar- right, which is what makes it dangerous. They think that the current government isn't setting up labor camps - but that it wouldn't take much for them to do so. > Should we specify how a govt should be "taken out"? bazyar: The trouble with that stance is that I don't know of any militia leader who has the correct view of man's rights and the need of a gaovernment. Sub - revolution. -a Tom - that's a separate issue. bazyar: I don't think a militiaman would know a principle if it hit him on the head. > Steven: I understand that. My question was whether armed resistance was the solution. Dino: support that Tom - People have a right to revolt against their government, because it is the individual who is primary, not the government. bazyar: It is *not* a seperate issue...do you think it should be left up to the determination of the guy with the guns??? It was 200 yrs ago. Tom - in the end, that is what it comes down to. Political philosophy is about the use of force. tomm- would you rather it left up to the government with the guns? Tom - clearly, a proper philosophy is _extremely_ important. Tom: If they confiscate his guns, they can also confiscate yours > Baz: armed revolution? When does one know that the time's come for that? Are there any intermediate steps that should *morally* be taken? Sube: Has led into the next point At some point, armed resistance is necessary. Is it necessary now? I don't think so. Militia members think that time is near. Wright: If they knew of principles then they would know that the best way to defend their rights while they still have free speech is to use free speech to do it. Arming themselves just gives the statists an excuse for more statism. Wright: I don't own one, but I do think self defense is a proper moral stance. But the government cannot go around shutting down gun clubs because the members aren't sympathetic to the government! subetai- isn't being prepared a moral decision? When is the proper time for armed resistence? Dino - they _are_ exercising free speech, and the right of free association and assembly. wright- militias aren't actively engaging in armed resistence bazyar: that depends on what they openly state as their purpose for having those guns. Tom: What about defense form gov't violations of rights? Tom - actions speak louder than words. > KJ: being prepared to wipe out lawfully constituted authority definitely has moral overtones. I'm not sure what they are. If the expressed purpose is to fight the feds, then I think they should be shut down. Tom: I disagree Wright: censorship and forced disarmament of the population. Tom - if you're a cop, and you can convince a judge that a militia group is about to strike, then go get 'em. subetai- moral overtones? I disagree. (provided they have no local authority governing them). Tom - _my_ expressed, loudly stated, purpose is to oppose the current government and all it stands for. > Let's have more than "I disagree", shall we? subetai- possesing power isn't inherently moral or immoral, is it? > KJ: nope oh certainlly, but not now.. I do want to get one more point in -l bazyar: Well, what do you think it stands for? Tom - You are proposing that the government arrest people based on their stated philosophy. Sub: Lawfully constituted government? How by majority or by proper principles? > Baz: How about stated intentions? I asked it before, when is armed revolt appropriate? subetai- I agree that is is very disconerting to have wrong-thinking people with power, but I don't see the clear moral violation bazyar: association and assembly is fine, starting your own army is a different kettle of fish. Wright: the proper time for armed resistence is when there is no more rights to free speech. Sub - if a militia leader said "We're going to attack the Federal building on Monday", then fine. bazyar: If a group of persons get together, and openly state they theey are going to rob a bank, *that* is the time to shut them down. Dino: is it? What about when the gov't wants to take away the arms? > Bazyar: It's okay if the man's uncertain about the date? Wright: censorship and forced disarmament of the population. Dino: How about when free speach is threatend? Subetai: Stated intentions of militia members I've talked to is to DEFEND themselves from attack, not to initiate an attack. If the gov't congiscates the weapons, how will a revolt be possible when free speech ends? > Jim: Defend themselves if the govt. enforces a law they consider unjust. confiscates > Jim: Which may or may not be unjust objectively. Wright: It depends on the context. Taking arms from criminals is fine. Outlawing private ownership of bazookas is also fine or other weapons of mass destruction is also fine. Wright: I am against weapons confiscations, unless those groups or individuals are a real threat to civil liberties. TomM: Yes, when militias state that they are planning an attack on Washington, then it would be appropriate to act against them. Confiscation of weapons is unjust > Jim: How about if I pick a law and call it unjust, break it, then prepare to defend myselff against the police with a machine gun? I think Wright's point iw quite valid Tom: How do you determine if they are a threat? Subetai: Unfortunetly, the government action today is in many cases unjust objectively. So, where do we go from there? Wright: When they are not under the authority of government officials (local, state, or federal). Tom: what does that mean? When they break the law? When they threaten people ? > Jim: We determine objectively if the government's actions are unjust. Then we exhaust peaceful, legal remedies. When you get to the point that the system is so crooked that the right has no chance of succeeding, you bring out the heavy artillery. Subetai: Breaking the law does make you a criminal by law. If the context is the Soviet Union, then that's perfectly appropriate action. The context of the current U.S. laws, depending on the law, is a much more difficult problem. Wright: simply by *not* being under government authority is an objective threat. Okay, our scheduled time has ended. I'm finished moderating. Subetai: But you only have that right if you openly state what you would put in the place of the current government. So, a militia is an objective threat? Why? Subetai: From my knowledge of militias, they do seem to be challenging laws in court as their current stand, but preparing for the worst. TomM- there is a difference between being under government authority (obeying its laws) and doing what the government would like you to do > Jim: They might well be. I don't know much about militias. Kj: No doubt...my point is that there is *no* regulation of militias as they currently are organized...they are becoming private armies by default. Ok, what was the last thing I saw? er, I wrote. :) TomM: How would you regulate a militia? Tom: So what would you have? Should they just sit on their thumbs until all legal means close, and the gov't has all the weapons? TomM: Have you studied how militias are formed, what the state laws allow for? Do you know for certain that there is no regulation on militias in today's states and counties? Dino: i've said it many times...place them under the authority of local, state, or federal government forces. The people I talked to were always acting within the limits of the constitution, getting legal permits, etc. actually, I don't see any threat from men running around the wwods playing army > I'm looking at it from the point of view of a principle: what does a government do about people who declare themselves to be opposed to the government and ready to take it on through force? Do you first determine if they are cultists or wackos, or if they have a valid point? Or do you say, first put down your guns, then come talk with us? Just when I decided to put my $.02 in. If they make a threat to take specific action, then go get them I think the current militia laws are a hold-over from the time when the US had no standing army...*that* needs to be checked on, and resolved. Tom: some militias already recognize the local Sheriff as their commander, whether the Sheriff wants it that way or not. Wright - exactly. TomM: doesn't that defeat the purpose of a militia in the first place? Wright - Ayn Rand said that the time to revolt would be when the avenues of philosophy were cut off by censorship. sub - A government - meaning ANY form of government - or OUR government - and in its CURRENT form? Dino: We have a standing army, navy, etc. now...so the militias are largely unneccesary. I don't think the threat even needs to be specific. If they advocate the violent overthrow of the governmen, I believe that's illegal. baz: But, if the gov't takes all the weapons first, then how does one revolt? WillB: Correct. Wright - a lot of people are going to interpret pre-emptive strikes on gun clubs who happen to have political views as censorship. Wright: I don't either. If a militia were to take over a town, or if it were discovered that they were about to raid a town, then I would be all for taking them out, but with no evidence that they are initiating force on others, I don't agree they are violating anyone's rights. Wright - you'll have to go steal 'em. bazyar: and should you allow yourself to be disarmed before that? willb: What about the overthrow of a government that is clearly violating the constitution? npandya - not if I can help it :) > blspro: That I'm not certain about. I'd need to know a lot more about the present govt. and the extent of its power to perpetrate injustice before I could answer that. TomM: the point is, the US armed forces are under control of the US gov, militia's aren't... a militia whole existense is based on the threat/abuse of US gov. power. Baz: a difficult proposition I am not for gun control, unless it is very specific...like you can own weapons of self-defense, but not bazookas or tanks or such. When is violently overthrowing the govt justified? Steven - see above about censorship. TomM: making them a wing of the Nation Guard would be like them sleeping with the enemy, wouldn't it? Nation = National I'd tend to say that it is justified when they come to confiscate the weapons (my opinion) TomM: Constitutionally, there is a problem with a permanent standing army. Unfortunately, after helping to build up the enemies means of attacking us, we need a full time standing army. That doesn't make it less dangerous. I think it is incumbent upon a just government to allow for the existense of means of the citizens to overthrow it -- but give them no reason to do so. Dino: No...that's the whole point...if they are not under *any* government authority, what's to stop them from taking over? At that point, free speech will go soon anyway Tom - the government. Wright - "fear the government that fears your guns" Jim: You will have to elaborate on that statement, which I find to be horendous. TomM: Have you seen the weaponry the US government has? What's the militia going to do against that kind of power? Tom - a *standing* army. That does not mean that any gun control act means "take up arms" The militias are under the same government authority that you and I are. Why is anything extra needed? jay: no more is needed, has been my whole popint. TomM: What's to stop the government from taking over, given that there is not force to keep them in check? Dino - guerilla warfare, which we invented here in the US ;) point TomM: You'll have to explain what you find horrendous before I can comment in a useful manner. Jim: One does not solve a potential problem by multiplying it. Dino: they assume the military will help them. (defections) > I think we need to dissociate the question of gun-ownership from militias. There's more to a militia than gun ownership. They have expressed the intent of resisting the govt., which is something that needs to be discussed separately. Jim: What is the basis for your statement that a standidng army is unconstitutional? or problematic? Ghaki: that's a big assumption. Subetai: Agreed...the militia movement involves more than mere gun ownership...that is just their excuse. TomM: That's true. However, the reason for our current standing army is a multiplication of problems from the past. Had we not aided the Soviets when they were week, we wouldn't have a major threat of nuclear arms to have to defend against today. Sub - everyone in this room has also expressed the intent of resisting the government should the time come. Most of us own guns. Are we a militia? > Gun ownership should be perfectly legal. Jim: What is your point...you have yet to answer why a standing army is a problem. TomM: The constitution provided for a standing army for 2 years, to be supplied by order of the congress. Beyond 2 years a standing army wasn't valid. In case of national defense, the militias would be called up. Excuse? I think not. The militias formed largely as a reaction to increasing gun control Sub - saying "I will resist a tyrant with my life" is a philosophical statement, not a threat. Jim: that won't work today...and you will ahve to show me how a standing army (as it currently exists) is a problem...which it clearly is not. Sub - and as such, "shutting them down" as Tom advocates would be an *act of censorship*. Baz: exactly. On the other hand, saying "We plan to march on Washington and storm the Capitol building" is a threat Wright - that's correct. But I've never heard any militias say that. Jim_N: In the days of muskets and canon's that may have made sense, I'm not so sure that would make sense today. bazyar: Negatory! If they openly state that their purpose is armed resistance, then that is it. baz: Niether have I Tom - then you'd better come get me, because I will resist a tyrant and happily spill his blood. > Baz: First, I never said I was against militias - just that gun ownership and militias are two different things. Many gun owners are not part of a militia and don't want to be. Second, expressing an opinion about something is not equivalent to going out and training, writing up a contract agreed to and signed by a group of people to do "X" when "Y" happens. You have declared your intentions for yourself only. bazyar: unless a state wants to cecede (sp?) from the union, a militia has no authority whatsoever. TomM: If the government turns totalitarian, then my purpose will be armed resistance too. Should I be locked up? armed resistance against a tyranical gov't.. not the present state of gov't TomM: I said it wouldn't work today, given the threats to our national defense we have today. TomM: Not if its armed resistance to an unjust government or action Subetai: Agreed. Tom - a militia has the same authority the government has - the authority granted it by the people. Jim: Then what is your point??????? bazyar: that only works if the militia is under the authority of some government official. Current fed gov't does have some dictatorial aspects ... but point is, no would-be competitors have any consistent philosophic base of reason/individual rights ... far from it, they are mostly Christian loony tunes (which I have been advocating all along). Tom - huh? No. I can revoke my sanction of the government at any time. Phil: Yes...which is why they are an objective threat. Tom: the whole point of the militia is to resist an opressive gov't (if one should arise) If I expect to succeed at a revolt, however, I'd better make sure I have a lot of people on my side. TomM: My point was how standing armies was viewed in the constitution. Standing armies were for emergencies, not a permanent condition. I was also commenting on the factors that made it necessary for there to be a continuous state of emergency that we have today with the threat of nuclear attack from foreign countries. Hi Betsy, welcome to the fray baz: and plenty of guns. Steve - yep. > Baz: When you have a lot of people at your side, you become a threat to the govt. That is when they respond. None of the militias, as far as I have heard, are looking to take over anything. bazyar: I think you are missing the whole point of what a government is for...if a militia stated the proper principles, that it intended to be a proper government (which they don't currently) then it would be a different question. Sube: Then you have a civil war > Wright: sure TomM: There is nor reason to exacurage your comments with ????????????????? and statements of great "horendous" reactions. If you disagree state your reasons. Your emotions aren't relevent to me on these issues. Sub: the militia are not a threat, the militia are themselves respoding to a threat -- the threat of an overbearing govt on individual right. Tom - the government has no right to throw people in jail based solely on their philosophy. That is censorship. Tom - what you are advocating *is* tyranny of a scale never before seen in this country. Jim: You giving outcries repeatedly with no justification is horendous in the context of this discussion (like standding armies are unconstitutional). bazyar: You miss the entire point. Tom - if the Michigan Militia was planning on taking Congress next week, and had laid out plans to do so, fine, go get 'em. bazyar: Sure. Tom - it's not I who is missing the point. Tom: but they are not doing that. Tom - you are saying that they should be thrown in jail for saying they would fight for their liberty! That is an atrocity!!!! But they are not, therefore, no action should be taken. Except maybe to keep an eye on them, in case they do decide to take action Baz: Even if their substitute was much worse Christian lunacy? > Steve: Any armed group of people are a threat to whatever they oppose. Second, if the govt. is overbearing they should correct that using legal and political means if possible. Only when you get to the point that these means fail are you justified in using force. bazyar: If your stated purpose is to act against the government, then by that statement alone, you are acting illegally...unless you use the legal system of checks and balances to do it. Try studying the horrors of 1861-65 sometime before you advocate another Civil War Tom - you keep repeating that. Please address the *specific* point I made. Phil: who is advocating civil war? Wright: Baz for one Phil: That makes them morally repugnant. It does not make them candidates for oppression. bazyar: i just did. Sub: I agree entirely. However, it is the militias position that they have exhausted all other means, or that "that point" is right around the corner. Phil: He did not TomM: please define "act against government" more precisely If a bunch of people are arming and preparing for battle -- especially against the government -- that is a potential threat of force and the govt should infiltrate and watch them. Wright: "If Michigan militia wanted to storm Congress next week that's fine." What else does that imply? Betsy - *watch*, yes. Arrest? No. phil: You misread his statement. > Steve: If it is, then they are justified. I am not taking a position for or against militias in this country because I lack the information to make a judgement about that. That's why I'm speaking in principles. Betsy: Yes. But they should not arrest them until they threaten or take specific action TomM: I took it at face value Phil - you *intentionally* misread my statement. I know you have scrollback. Bazyar said that if a militia said they were going to strom the gov, then it's ok to shut them down. storm If there is substantial provable evidence that they are about to _initiate force_ they out to be stopped and arrested. What? the problem? Phil - don't come in here at the tail end of a discussion and then assume all sorts of ridiculous things about the context. Whoah, guys, calm down. out=ought Betsy: Agreed. But not before, as Tom seems to be advocating. * TomM thinks phil only heard the end of bazyar's statement. Okay> Phil: You misread the statement Sub: it's a hard call to make, for sure. * bazyar needs to go cool down. bbiab. :) TomM" Are you saying that someone should be arrested _before_ there is evidence of impending use of force? bazyar: "If Michigan militia was planning on taking Congress next week and had plans to do so, fine." How is that *not* advocacy of Civil War? Unless you think U.S. gov't would roll over and play dead? Phil: That is out of context Wright: I am not advocating shutting them down if all they were doing was talking...but combining such talk as the militias do with the fact that they are organizing *military tactics* is enough to shut them down. * PhilTwo does have a tendency to make perfectly obvious simply implications Phil: I think you're taking that out of context. simply=simple Phil Two: I believe bazyar meant , fine, go ahead and arrest them Here's what Jawaid REALLY said: Tom - if the Michigan Militia was planning on taking Congress next week, and had laid out plans to do so, fine, go get 'em. Tom: No, it is not. There needs to be a threat of action betsy: That was in answer to you as well. Phil: but militias aren't saying that. Oh, ok. I thought "get'em" meant get Congress, not militia. Sorry, Baz "go get 'em" meaning "go get the militia". Yep > Generally, a lawfully constituted govt. needs to take a stand against threats of violence made to its authority. there's a point at which the govt. becomes immoral (no recourse to legal correction, dictatorial govt., etc), but unless that point is here, it seems illogical to expect the govt, to just sit by and pay no attention to people arming themselves against it. LP talked about this on the radio. (someone oughta go kick some butts on Capitol Hill anyway ;) Actually, I guess that statement of bazyar was somewhat ambiguous, if the earleir context was not known. Baz: True Sube: We're not saying pay no attention. By all means these groups should be watched Subetai: yes,d that is my point. sub - did you ever define what you meant by "lawfully constituted government"? LP said that if you still have free speech there is no right and no need to organize a private army. But Tom is going beyond watching them Wright - but it would be a grievous offense against rights to arrest someone for saying they would defend their liberty with their life. Sub: exactly. If the govt was just, there would be no need for militias. Does the existence of militias imply the govt is unjust? Betsy: That is the point I have been arguing...did Peikoff specify further? > blspro: I'd say a constitutional democracy, where the constitution was fundamentally sound and legal recourses existed to correct bad laws. If you don't have free speech, you should declare war against the government openly -- as the founding Fathers did. Betsy - are there any other offenses you would consider as grievous as that? Betsy: what if the government seeks to confiscate all the arms from the citizenry? What if you had free speech, but a single dictator? Betsy - no right? I might understand no need, but no right? Betsy: The militias are not declaring war against the gov't, they are preparing for the day when that might be necessary bazyar: Merely saying that is fine...no arrest should be made...my point is that these people, for the most part, are a far greatrer danger than the current government. > Steve: it implies nothing of the kind. Just that some people are dissatisfied with it. For whatever reasons. Tom - I know the kind of people in militias - I lived among them in Mt.Vernon, IL. They're not dangerous. tomm- how so? Are they more powerful than the US military? Betsy: Okay, so LP said a private army is not necessary when you have free speech. That doesn't tell us the validation of that principle...what constitutes a private army, why should they be outlawed, etc. Tom: From what I've seen of them I disagree bazyar: Perhaps I need to be more specific...surely *all* of them are not dangerous...but those who are need to be shut down. Wright: If you are "preparing" I think it is proper for the govt to infiltrate to see if that is all you are doing. Betsy - is the right to organize a private army - not to initiate force - but simply to organize an army period - dependent upon how the govt uses its force? betsy: agreed Sub: okay, agreed. However, the govt is pretty damn overbearing now, and that is the reason many of them are there. How does one differentiate an "army" from a gun club? I saw some members of Indiana militia invited to Mensa meeting within last year. Ultra religious nuts TomM: The current government is taking private property from people in the name of the environment, forcing employers to hire people who don't meet their needs, etc. That's happenning today. Militias are not initiating force against anyone today. Phil: the MI Militia people seem to be "god fearers" as well Phil - Thomas Jefferson believed in God, but I'd rather have him at my side than an atheist commie any day. LP is going to have a whole show on militias soon. Ghaki: Not surprised Jim: I know that...but they are still an objective threat if not place under government auspices. Betsy: I look forward to that show. ghaki- would it be fair to say that the government poses a lesser threat not because of less power or superior thinking, but because of the inertia of its weight makes it more predictable? oops...meant bye...not buy... ;) (less power should be MORE power) Steven: "overbearing" as in too many taxes and regulations is one thing. You can still fight and change that if you have free speech. Where the pen is still working there is no reason to use swords. TomM: But some of our current government agencies aren't just threatenning, they are already violating rights. (superior should be inferior..) Betsy: What if the gov't comes to take away all of the swords? Betsy - what if there's no legislature? I.E., when you no longer have a voice in the government? Kj: Yes, there is a system of checks and balances within the government...for instance, I don't think Clinting could launch an attak on, say, New Jersey, without many degrees of checks. Betsy - can you not use the pen - but also prepare to use the sword in case the pen fails? > Hey - gun control is a whole separate issue. baz- by that time it's too late to start thinking about alternatives Betsy: I agree with that too. It's just that the militias believe if no longer makes a difference what you write. yeah, what bls said. Steven - good point, that was one of the first things we said about militias. tomm- well shouldn't the law enforcement agencies simply keep an eye on the militias to act as a 'check' ? Sube: Not really. If the people have no arms, resistence is very difficult, if not impossible Steven: Then that is where they are saying force is the only means of settling dfisputes...which is objectively dangerous...and should be shut down. blspro: You can practice swordplay, but the govt is perfectly proper in keeping and eye on you to make ure the swordplay doesn't get real. > Wright: Yes it is. I *actively* and vehemently oppose gun control. I'm uncertain about militias, though I tend to think that they're silly and should be watched carefully. betsy- right. Tom: there is only one way to dea with a loaded gun. Betsy : If resistance is so hard, why did the USSR and E Germany collapse so easily. KJ: Sure, that's why i said they can only act under the auspices of the local or state government. Steven: That's the problem with the militias. They are using force where they can and should be using ideas. They're the last people I would want "defending" me. Sube: Didn't say I supported them. But I *do* support their rights re: Lisa Tom: pointed at you, I should add. Denarius - they didn't collapse easily. It took 40 years and billions of dollars! by the way...bazyar's statement earlier of a dictatorship with free speach is impossible. > Saying that action against militias is necessarily action against gun-ownership is mixing two issues together that should not be related. bazyar : correct not weapons Tom - how's that? bazyar: you mean billions of dollars given by the US kept them going, right? Betsy: How are they using force? Tom - well, that too. I was referring to the billions put into the arms race to bankrupt them. > Wright: I wasn't talking about that. I was pointing out that gun-ownership and the militias should be two separate things. Betsy: I don't disagree with that either. But at some point, you _may_ need to be defended. Subetai: i agree...trying to put those two issues together merely confounds rational thought. TomM : correct . Most of the Wests intellectuals get on very well with all totalitarians. Tom - if Clinton had a strong hold on the military, he could dissolve Congress and run the country single-handedly (via the bureaucracy) without changing much else. If guns were outlawed, militias would be irrelevent. The freedom to bear arms is a precondition of the militia controversy. Baz: All it took for the Commies to collapse was the secret waepon of IDEAS: Reagan shooting off his mouth and calling them an "Evil Empire". Without moral legitimacy, they collapsed. TomM: Lack of liberty while still having free speech is possible though. The anti-trust laws still exist despite free speech attacks on such laws. It is important to fight them by speaking out, but in the mean time, you are still being violated. Subetai: the gun example is brought up in contrast to those that say that as long as one has free speech, one has no right to fight the government bazyar: Earlier you said something lik: Well, if free speach is the issue, what about a dictatorship that permits free speach? Tom - right, I said that bazyar: And I said that is a logical contradiction. > Steve: But gun-ownership is independent of the militia issue, no matter whether the militias could or could not survive without it. Tom - I used dictatorship to mean that the government was run by a single man (or council or whatever) without representation of any kind. Wright the militias think the answer is guns and drills when the enemy will really be defeated by lectures and letters to the editor. Jim: No one here would deny that...but it is not time to take up arms against the feds due to anti-trust laws. Betsy: And yet, there is still not property rights in the soviet union, and they risk falling back into communism on a constant basis. bazyar: Which could only exist if free speach was prohibited. > npandya: Ownership of guns need not have anything to do with the govt, at all. It could be for self-defense, or sporting, or just because I think guns are pretty. Tom - I gave my example above Betsy: If free speech is the solution, why is there ever any armed revolution? Jim: That's because their leaders know nothing about individual rights...nor do their enemies within the state. Steve - I think she means it's not too late for words and ideas to make an impact. Betsy: I hope it will. But if that fails, then the only thing left is to take up arms in self defense. Steven: Not all armed revs. are justified. French Rev. didn't exactly produce better results than what they overthrew for example, same for communists Jim: That's because destroying bad ideas doesn't necessary teach and win acceptance of good ideas. phil: Exactly: One needs a coherent system of rights before one can legitimately take over a governmental area...which is why the militias (for the most part) are dangerous (since they don't have this). TomM: No, not even with EPA laws, etc. But it might be time to start preparing for worse conditions. We almost lost the medical industry last year, and yes it was fought with ideas. But the liberals are still moving forward, they have still taken over quite a bit, and there is a strong indication it could get worse in the near future, potentially. TomM: And no, I am not a member of a militia, in case you are wondering. > I don't think militias should be outlawed, unless they give some serious indication of carrying out their intents. But they should be watched carefully for such intent and action taken whenever there is a reasonable threat that they are about to get violent. Tom - the armed men of America didn't have a philosophy - until Jefferson et.al. gave it to them. Jim: i'm not wondering...however, taking up arms is only the last resort, and will elad to disaster if the right political principles are not behind the guns. > threat of them getting violent, that is lead Betsy: True, and being free to argue ideas doesn't mean your rights are secure in the meantime. The American Revolution did have to take place to gain freedom, because the right to petition the government didn't change anything. I don't think I'm expressing my point very well. I'm not saying that all or any militias are justified. Right now, they may be all nutso. However, there may (some say will) come a day when conditions exist that militias will be justified. At that point, I will support them wholeheartedly. Until then, I support thier right to exist at the very least. bazyar: it was implicit in the early colonial culture...thanks to Franklin et al. TomM: Our current path of gov't expansion will lead to disaster as well Stevenh: I agree with Peikoff that armed revolution is not proper if you can still fight for the good with words. There are still lots of improper uses of arms and private armies. TomM: Yes, a last resort, which so far I haven't seen a militia member advocate as the first thing to do. Preparing for a last resort isn't the same as taking it. Tom - as a desire for liberty and freedom from tyranny is implicit in the current militias. Tom - Michigan farmers aren't philosophers, generally. As a philosopher, you should try to reach them. bazyar: Is it??? That is what I am questioning...I don't think it is. bazyar: They wouldn't listen. Tom - as well as it's understood by any non-Objectivist. Tom: from my limited reading, that sentiment is there. > As for gun-control: I think the only valid reason for taking away one's right to own a weapon is when the weapon is such that by its very nature it cannot be used without hurting innocent people or their property. Tom: You don't know that sentiment is not the same thing as a political philosophy. Baz: I WISH the militia members had Jefferson's philosophy -- but I really don't think that they do. betsy- it really doesn't matter if they do or not TomM: Our current government doesn't have a "coherent system of rights" and it is proper to be concerned about this, and take precautions, which is what the militias are doing. Tom: It doesn't take a political philosophy to want to be free. Kj: it sure does...that's the whole point of this argument. Betsy - no, I don't think they have his philosophy explicitly. But this is, after all, America - and the ideas of freedom seeped deep into the ground during the revolution, and they still affect us - even the simply militia member Tom: explicit and organized philosophy, I mean. Steven: A desire is not a philosophy. And moreso the farmer-with-a-gun than the Kennedy's or Clintons, who are so far removed from the reality of life that they think freedom comes at the point of a gun. All of the Militia members I've heard seem to be pro US Constitution tomm- until they actually DO something, it doesn't matter. No one here would argue that our current gov officials know what rights are, but fortunately, the Constitution is mostly upheld, leaving us free enough to change it. I find it interresting, but sad, that TomM concludes "They wouldn't listen" before making any attempt to talk ideas with militia members. Tom - no, the militias don't have a complete, coherent, explicit philosophy. Someone should give them one. Tom: that's what I said. you doubted that a desire for freedom was their motive. Go baz! Steven: Nope...I said a desire for freedom won't get if for you. Baz: You have a much higher opinion of militia members than I do. The ones I've seen and read about are concrete-bound, anti-intellectual, usually religious, usually nationalist, sometimes racist, simpletons playing soldier with loaded weapons. Betsy: Exactly freedom isn't really freedom if there is some prerequisite philosophy needed to qualify Betsy - well, the press won't talk about the regular Joe's, will they? KJ: where the hell did that come from? Jim: They have access to the same ideas I do...I haven't heard **any** of them taking up the Objectivist position...nor even fully the American Revolutionary ideas. There was nothing stopping the "regular Joes" from attending the particular meeting I went to and if anything they seemed nuttier than the press representations Betsy - there's no circulation in talking about people who oppose the ideas of the government on a rational basis. Far from it, they avoid such exposure to good ideas at every opportunity. Betsy: The press does seem to pick out the worst of the lot. My knowledge comes from interviews on talk radio, and while they aren't geniuses, they are not simpletons I WORK with some militia members and they're not exactly mental giants. Betsy: lol Ha ha Betsy: The congress men I see on the news are like that also. It concerns me that they make the laws. stevenh- please explain your comment Jim: it concerns all of us...but that is not the point. Betsy - not everyone is an Ayn Rand or a Leonard Peikoff. If you dismiss everyone else straight away, you have lost. Freedom doesn't require a philosophical base? ??? baz: well said Freedom **does** require a philosophic base...we haven't had one which is why we have lost so much freedom. stevenh- I said, you shouldn't have to subscribe to any particular philosophy to qualify for freedom Jim: Congressmen are bad, too. But this is a battle of ideas, and when you resord to force, you abandon your real weapons. TomM: The point is that if you condemn the militia members by that standard, you must also condemn government officials by that standard. If so, there is reason to find the current goverment to be extremely unsteady, and therefore some might prepare for the last resort. stevenh- making a certain philosophy or mindset as a prequesite for freedom is ridiculous Betsy: At some point you have no choice but to resort to force. But even when you don't have to resort to force, you can prepare for that situation. hmmmm stevenh- therefor, it superfluous whether or not militias have the correct philosophy when we're talking about whether we should allow them to exist or not Kj: That is not the point...the point is that without a philosophy, your desire to be free is no better than the desire for someone to rule over you. Betsy: The Founding Fathers didn't abandon the weapon of reason by declaring their independence, and then fighting for it. > Jim: I guess if you're really serious, and not a crackpot with any itchy trigger finger, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to band together with like minded people to prepare for that eventuality. But I guess the govt. would need to watch you to make sure that's who you were. * TomM suggests you drop your Libertarian stance and take up Objectivism. KJ_: Right. Rights are not based on a person's ideas, but are needs of man. Only when a man initiates force against others is he to be stopped (or when he threatens to initiate force.) tomm- who are you talking to?? Whoa, bad argument. Kj: If the shoe fits, acknowledge it. Subetai: Fine, they can watch me, so long as they don't violate my rights in the process. TomR: I learned a lot about the difference between Libertarianism and Objectivism right there! Subetai: Such as searching my property without reasonable cause that I'm potentially committing a crime. Tom - and you're the reigning Objectivist authority? Sorry I forgot to bow to your superior intellect. > Jim: I'd agree to that. They shouldn't do anything to violate your rights unless you were suspected of a crime. StevenH: Huh? * Jim_N is always taking up Objectivism. I'm not a libertarian. Thanks bazyar. I was till a little cloudy on the difference until KJ's statement. > Jim: No wiretaps, no search and seizure, no harassment. bazyar: That statement was made against those who think freedom is merely having the desire to be free...the typical Libertarian stance. Subetai: But ownership of a weapon is not grounds to suspect me of crime. Otherwise the right to bear arms contradicts the right against illegal searches. TomM - be more careful when you direct comments like that. Without porper principles, no freedom is gained. proper. Subetai: Nor the fact that I do target practice is grounds for assuming I'm going to commit a crime. bazyar: Note that they werre not directed at anyone in particular. Jim: You are dropping the entire context. > Jim: I don't think ownership of a weapon should be considered grounds to suspect one of crime. I was talking about things such as mouthing off about "someone needs to plant a bomb in the White House". TomM - but you just wrote off most of the population! How do you expect them to get the right principles if you won't have anything to do with them, in any manner? The militia are doing far more than target practivce. TomM - are you going to plant the right ideas in their heads through telepathy? What? > Jim: You may have missed my earlier statement about guns. I think gun-ownership should be absolutely, unequivocally legal. bazyar: What are you talking about? Some principles are involved here Tom. The right to property, the right to life, etc. If you believe they must understand those rights all the way to the metaphysics, then you must conclude that the Founding Fathers were improper to fight for their freedom as they didn't have the full defense of rights. I don't agree with that. bazyar: it is not my duty to inform them of anything. I have no objection to _individuals_ owning firearms but that different from private armies or weapons of mass destruction owned by anybody. TomM - no, of course not. But then don't belittle them because they don't have a proper explicit philosophy. Jim: Neither do I. I said if they are merely going by their desire to be free, then they won't get it...don't drop context. > Betsy: What is the precise difference? The fact that they are together for a cause? Or the nature of the weapons? Subetai: My comments were to give examples, not to argue gun rights. That people prepare for self-defense (of any kind) doesn't mean they are planning to commit a crime. That's my point. I'm not saying you disagree. Subetai: Because force is dangerous...so those taking up arms for any purpose other than defense of individual rights needs to be infiltrated and watched **very** carefully. TomM: But who are you making that point to in this dicussion? Who here is arguing soley on the basis of "desire"? Betsy - define "private army", and explain how it's different from a gun club, or any other gun-related group? Jim: it came up earlier...which is why I made that Libertarian comment. > Jim: Okay. I said that if they say things indicating they'd like to violently overthrow the govt, they need to be watched, regardless of whether they own guns or not. Who am I? I'm Tom Miovas. Betsy: If individual rights are what counts, why do you think that the level of destruction is the differentia in determining the validity of weapons? > Tom: they're taking up arms for the defense of individual rights. Subetai: Even if they say they are preparing to act against the government, not take it over, they should be watched. Subetai: And I agree with you on that. Sube: Private armies are preparing to do battle with another large armed group. They are preparing to overthrow the government! Tom: I don't think anyone ever said that they should not be _watched_ Subetai: no they are not...they don't even understand what that means...all they ever talk aboaut is the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. TomM: That's what Subetai said. Jim: Well, that is not individual rights. > Betsy: It shouldn't be a difference of one man or a dozen. Banding together for a cause should not be illegal. I understand that if the threat is larger, the government would take it more seriously, but no more than that. TomM: All they ever talk about? Where in the breif news reports you've happenned to see? The people i met talked about much more than that, such as the need for sound money, property rights, etc. What are they **for**? That is the over-riding question...which they do not make clear...touting th Constitution is not enough these days. Jim: Weapons of mass destruction are more likely to violate the rights of innocent bystanders, non-combatants, etc. * StevenH had a really good time but now has to go to bed. Good night. Tom: Well, what is not individual rights? bye steve Jim: Defending merely right to bear arms and rights of assembly is *not* defending individual rights...life is **not** a war. Sube: If the cause is overthrowing the government by force, it ought to be outlawed. > I said this before about gun-ownership. I'll say it again: all weapons should be legal except those which cannot be possibly used without destroying or hurting the innocent or their property. * Ghaki will be back in a bit. (eating lunch) Lunch??? Betsy - what if a number of people get together and state "We will revolt with force if the government imposes censorship". Should that be illegal? In case of militias, even if they used Springfield rifles ala the Civil War they could kill a lot of people (before being destroyed).. TomM: I didn't say they "merely" defended those things. I explicetly gave other rights that they are defending, which are individual rights. Life is not war, but the right to life does include the right to defense. phil: that's not the point...some weapons are not very selective. > Betsy: Free speech means I can talk about overthrowing the govt. They can't do anything unless I actually do something that can't be interpreted except as an act to overthrow the govt. What difference does it make if it's just me, or a bunch of people? Except for the seriousness of the threat to the govt, for which they may prepare. It's still my right and that of others. Baz: They ought to be watched and stopped if they intend to start the revolt next Tuesday. TomM: *My* point is nature of militias and intent of members, not quibbles over specific weaponry Jim: All I ever hear them talking about is those rights, and no others. Betsy - fine. Just be careful how you say that :) seems we've gone over these points about three or four times now Wright: At least. phil: there is a big difference in saying one has the right to a rifle VS the right to a bazooka or a tank. TomM: If that's all you hear them talk about, you haven't looked into it enough. I've heard them say much more than what is reported in the news. > I agree that the government should watch such groups and make sure they stay within the law. i wouldn't mind if they moved a couple of tank batallions nearby to prepare for the eventuality. But outlawing someone for holding an opinion is not my idea of freedom. TomM: Name that difference. Jim: Possibly...but if they ahve that much to say, then they need to make their statements more open, and available to the general public. The Rush TV show is good tonight.. he's giving out the 3rd Annual "Rushie" awards TomM: One guy with a tank (which should not be permitted) would still do much less damage than 1,000 guys armed with 30-06 rifles who intended to resist all government power Jim: if you don't know the difference, then side with your militia buddies. Tom - free speech doesn't mean you have to have your views published in the paper. Getting together with like-minded people and talking about ideas is just as important, and more common. phil: agreed...i'm talking about what an *individual* has the right to posses. Tom - like what we're doing here right now. :) Baz: like IRC? ;) TomM: They have no control over what gets on the news, anymore than the Republicans or Leonard Peikoff. If someone says something narrow about Objectivism and you tell them there is more to it, it is invalid to declare that it's Objectivisms fault for not having better press. TomM: I don't think you know the difference, else you'd not be afraid to name it. TomM: Which you haven't done. bazyar: agreed...but if their views are so correct, then they should be willing to promote it. bazyar: And to state openly what they want to fight for...not just what they want to fight against. TomM: I think they are willing to promote them. What makes you think they are being secret about it? and they have given no indication they understand the constitution. You know, we should have a guncontrol discussion.. some other time, and seperate from the militias\ jim: They are not promoting the correct ideas. Wright: Sure...we've had tehm before, with the same results. TomM: The people I've talked to show they study the constitution regularly, carrying a copy in their pocket, doing legal research etc. And contrary to Kelley and his minion, ideas are causal agents in the world. The Constitution is not enough in this battle. TomM: Not all the correct ideas true. They tend to be deists. But they do advocate the rights to property, life, trade, etc. I don't care about their deism...most are worse than that. TomM: What's the difference between the rights to own a gun or a bazooka? You still aren't answering that question. And the reason I ask is to prove that you can not explain the difference. Jim: if they understood the issues, they wouldn't be toting guns, they would be giving talks, and lectures on the basis of rights. Jim: Nope...they do not understand the issues involved. Anyhow, that's enough for now...bye. Aw heck, I was going to ask how many militia members he'd talked to get that impression. TomM: If you know they aren't homogeneous, then why discuss them as inherently evil? As a single group with a single premise? Great, he's gone, without answering my question about the difference that he couldn't name. bazyar: I serously doubt he's talked to any. He has seen news reports though...the ones just after the OK bombing that all speculated that the militias were behind it. bazyar: I say this because I know Tom and have talked to him personally on this subject. The point is that preparing to take on the govt militarily is unwarranted as long as you can fight them ideologically. Who is still here tonight? Actually listenning and wanting to talk that is? Betsy - yes, if you do the former and not the latter, then you're sealing your own fate. Betsy: So long as you have a valid ideology when fighting them. I'd agree with that. Betsy: Oh, sorry I mis-read your point, I think....hold on. Betsy: Why is it unwarrented to "prepare" to defend yourself against the government, even if you currently have the ability to fight with them idologically? Jim: I think that anybody who thinks that taking up arms will be necessary anytime before they are too old to hold a rfle doen't understand our current situation and the power of ideas. Betsy: Preparing for something before it is necessary to do is common if you want to be ready when it is necessary to act. Betsy: Perhaps not. I personally don't see how I'd win a battle, even if necessary, against the U.S. government. However, I don't think I can win against a gang of thugs, but I'd like to know how to at least attempt to fight them if necessary. Betsy: The issue here, though, is their right to try to prepare, not whether they can succeed in such preparation. Jim: They have the right to prepare and the govt ought to watch them. Betsy: As for lifetimes, I'm not sure that we'll win the ideological battle before I'm too old to relish my freedom. But I'll continue to argue my case until I die. Betsy: I agree with that. They have a right to prepare and the govt ought to watch them, by legal means. And "legal means" applies both to the militias and to the government in my previous msg. Jim: If (God forbid!) we lose our freedom in this country, a bunch of guys marching with guns will be a futile gesture. The best way to prepare for real disaster is hiding out, blending in, leaving the country, owning gold, etc. Exactly If one's personal goal is the live life rationally and selfishly ... if things are that bad, you won't be able to change them in your lifetime anyway Betsy: while gold is nice, and pretty much universally accepted, it is impractical to have in large amounts...if you have it with the idea of taking it in flight Betsy: From the type of people I've met who even think about militias, I'm sure they've thought about those alternatives as well. It may be a combination of hiding out, and fighting when necessary. Having the organization skills to at least establish local governments if the federal government calapses, etc. You also need some way of defending the gold you own when the real disaster, if it happened, occurred. Jim_N: that is simply a matter of not allowing anyone to know that you have it The militia people I know couldn't organize a pot luck supper. They're too concrete-bound. the ones that I know always end up fighting with each other...and over the silliest stuff Betsy: I'm glad I don't know those people then, Betsy. I do look forward to LP's show on militias. He commented on a previous show that he'd try to have an actual militia member come on the show.