What is the Christian Militia?
by cameo-d 43 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
journey-on
Bullsh*t, keyser soze. Let me reword it for you: Based on my research over the last several months, I have come to the PERSONAL conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama is anti-second amendment. You may disagree, so I would suggest you do some of your own research to refute my personal conclusion.
-
BurnTheShips
They are called Hutaree. It sounds like a cult. The Michigan Militia has disavowed any link to this organization.
BTS
-
journey-on
Wow, Burns!!! Let's watch this closely. Let's see how this administration is going to use this.
-
keyser soze
Journey-on, you made the following assertion:
It's in the works as we speak.
Supporting such a statement with something substantial would go a long way. In what way is it 'in the works'?
-
BurnTheShips
Let's see how this administration is going to use this.
Obama has made a lot of pro 2ndA mouth noises since his candidacy, and during his Presidency. I don't trust him on it however. He is picking his fights. The so called "assault weapons ban" hurt Clinton bigtime during his first term. He doesn't need the NRA getting up in his face while he works on other parts of his big plan. They can move a lot of votes.
BTS
-
journey-on
Yes, since his candidacy, he has started singing a slightly different tune, but it's still off key. You have to go back before he began eyeing the presidency to see what he's really all about. He is one shifty smooth character, IN MY OPINION.
-
cameo-d
Is this a movement that is being sanctioned by religious leaders or egged on by the dogma of evangelistic dominionism?
What happened to "obey the laws of the land policy"? Or does that just come into play when the gov. is letting the religionists run things their way?
-
Brocephus
Cameo, where has any religious group or leader endorsed these guys. They are just a handful of whack jobs. If we can believe not all muslims want to be terrorist when the most mosques refuse to take a hard stand against terrorism. Why can't we believe that these guys are just a wheel's off group when every conservative and religous leader I have heard today has condemend these guys?
-
sammielee24
Just some other info on Nazi gun control - --------
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.