Domestic Terrorists

Status
Not open for further replies.
How long do you think it will take for one of this nut cases to fill up a dozer with hi explosive and level a gov building?
 
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Criminality hiding behind ideology....


This can be said about many 'institutions', including some revered ones...
 
Originally Posted By: Andy636
How long do you think it will take for one of this nut cases to fill up a dozer with hi explosive and level a gov building?


Wasn't that already done in Oklahoma?
 
I've run into a few sovereign knuckleheads. It's just another group that wants all the privileges of living in a wealthy democracy, but none of the responsibilities.
 
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


There is nothing in the Constitution about leaving once you become a state. I think the founding fathers expected it to be a one way ticket in.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


It's actually not splitting hairs. The south never sought to over throw the United States Government, but merely to create their own nation in a region of largely likeminded people. Those that weren't like minded refused to join the Confederacy, (hence the "Free State of Winston County" in the great State of Alabama and of course, that whole new state called "West Virginia" which ironically was the birthplace of Stonewall Jackson). While there were many in the north who felt the south should be allowed to leave, (let erring sisters depart), there were enough in government who felt the union should not be divided, hence the reason some call it "The War of Northern Aggression."
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


Spot on. The entire bloodbath was caused by Lincoln being a tyrant.
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


There is nothing in the Constitution about leaving once you become a state. I think the founding fathers expected it to be a one way ticket in.


There is nothing in the Constitution PROHIBITING it, either...therefore, it is implicitly permitted! I suspect most of the Founding Fathers would have been firmly in the Confederate camp!
 
The South actually did fire first on Fort Sumter. The North viewed the South as Traitors. I visited Gettysburg and the North refused to even bury the dead confederates, instead to let the crows eat them and rot, because they were traitors. They hastily buried them when they heard Lincoln was coming in mass graves, but some dead bodies in the Devils Den were left for Months to rot. The North needed the South and that war was going to be fought regardless of Lincoln, it was a industry need and the South wasn't allowed to leave. Lincoln was just a puppet. The South really should have had a better plan. If your going to succeed on that grand of a level, stockpile before hand, don't put a West point General in charge of fighting a guerilla war and fight a defensive battle where you pick the defenses. The South totally F'd that all up/
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


They didn't shoot flowers at Fort Sumter.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


There is nothing in the Constitution about leaving once you become a state. I think the founding fathers expected it to be a one way ticket in.


There is nothing in the Constitution PROHIBITING it, either...therefore, it is implicitly permitted! I suspect most of the Founding Fathers would have been firmly in the Confederate camp!


Texas V White in 1869 ruled otherwise.
 
Guys, I did not want to restart the "War of Yankee Agression", the "War Between the States", teh "Civil War" or the "War of the Rebellion." My only point was to note that the guy in question did not even know about this event!

Deo vindice!
 
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
I've run into a few sovereign knuckleheads. It's just another group that wants all the privileges of living in a wealthy democracy, but none of the responsibilities.


Well said, so true.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Seriously low on the threat level. Almost seems like a Hollywood made for TV thing. Those people look dumber than a bag of hammers.

First I thought this thread was about real threats:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/world-war-vet-beating-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

SPLC? Who knew??


Well there have been successful and some random acts of killing by Sovereigns as well. There's somewhat of a similarity in the mentality to the incidents you posted.

And the FBI also considers them a threat.

Read the SPLC analysis of them. A section of society that are attracted to the idea might surprise you and may reinforce your feelings and beliefs about that particular section.
 
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
I've run into a few sovereign knuckleheads. It's just another group that wants all the privileges of living in a wealthy democracy, but none of the responsibilities.


It would be interesting to find out how many Americans sympathize with the idea and what demograpraphic they are.

The estimate is the another 200,000 are attracted to the concept and do low level acts eg drive without a license in order to challenge the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom