Profile
Search
Register
Log in
no Ohio Militia thread yet?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

We new you'd be back.

There is a difference between being socially liberal and being on the left. The former implies tolerance, while the latter involves class consciousness- a subject rarely talked about in the US other than empty gestures toward the "working class" from either political party, but not really our relation to capital. Liberal in the political economic sense means the free market, which both parties loyally support, but the right has kind of a conservative brand of liberalism where they mix it with patriotism and bomb your country into the free market, where as the "liberals" will be a bit more diplomatic about capitalizing off your countries wealth. The liberal party in the US- Dems- will make some gestures toward the middle class, but usually with a tinge of American exceptionalism. In other words there is no "international solidarity" as someone put it, to the working class. I feel that I'm kind of educated about all these particulars enough to smell the bullshit and lack of perspective on the news but the media is just making things really confusing by the way that they report. Even the "liberals" like Rachel Madow, while much more intelligent, kind of pander to those audiences who already agree with them. In my opinion they are too easy on the Obama administration but I guess they are kind of forced to be because of all the lies being spread. I would like to see a program where they take an hour a day or something and don't do news but political education.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
McTools



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 181
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Who felt threatened by militias? I think people were disturbed by the undercurrents leading to these particular types and maybe the undue attention a bunch of outliers get from the media.

The militia aspect is just a red herring that legitimizes a bunch of dormant, self defeating ideas that the middle/lower class income bracket in this country have festering in their guts for no sensible reason but fear and hypothetical greed.
I don't see how anyone could be free and not worried by that.

So you're right, militias aren't really the problem except that everyone's vague idea of their function masks a lot of bogus motivations and practices (that like you said in the car scenario, could be fixed up with education and resources).

The second amendment should definitely be clarified. It's not just about anybody and their buddies getting guns to shoot the black helicopters. It's about voluntary and representative community based organization to counterbalance and assist a standing (paid) army. More like a volunteer fire department than a paramilitary organization. Or it should be anyway.


I'm from Idaho originally, where EVERY ONE has guns. I bought a AK-47 right after my 18th birthday because I couldn't buy a hand gun yet. I go shooting. I don't hunt, I don't "Carry a Strap", I just like to go shooting cans with my friends. Growing up in Idaho I also always thought I was a hippy, probably cuz I wasn't racist! Ha! But moving from there I've seen this fear of guns that Cali and allot of the west coast have. I've met people that think we shouldn't have any guns at all, only cops and military. I do see the gun as a tool that can be used as entertainment, and not like turning a electric saw into a automatic dildo, but like a car. I don't think that people should have guns with out takeing a class to teach them gun safety, or growing up being taught proper use. Some people think gun safety is a oxi-moronic phrase, but it's not, it's a very importiant step that shouldn't be over looked.

The Sons of Liberty where the first American Milita.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/sons.htm

They're the reason that we have 13 strips on our flag. (See more about that in my "Who's flag are you under" post in the political forum.) They we're also one of the major contributers to our country's removal from British rule.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Like folks said earlyer, it's not the principle of the milita that's on either side of politics, it the people in them. The milita is our only tool against the government at our last resort, it's the same thing as a neighborhood watch. People being united and prepaired. There's extremists for every group, to quote Mad Magazine, "You must be crazy if you think our fat idiot is smarter than their fat idiot."

And on the Zapatistas, they where pure blood Indians that where being massacered by the Mexican Government, that's genocide! They had no comunication to the out side world and their history and culture had been almost compleatly destroyed by generations of being hated and hunted. It took a couple years of gorilla warfare for them to even get noticed after they went "public". My family helped to fund doctors and teachers who went down to Chiapas in the late 90's and help them with health and agriculture. They had almost none of either and they wouldn't touch the Mexican Governments institutions for fear of what they might to do them or their family. If the Zapatistas hadn't been formed those Indians would probably be gone by now and we would have never heard a peep. They fought tooth and nail to become recognized, and that's all they wanted. There hasn't been a shot fired between these partys since, that's a milita.

That's not directed at you Raoul, just a starting point for me :)
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

McTools wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Who felt threatened by militias? I think people were disturbed by the undercurrents leading to these particular types and maybe the undue attention a bunch of outliers get from the media.

The militia aspect is just a red herring that legitimizes a bunch of dormant, self defeating ideas that the middle/lower class income bracket in this country have festering in their guts for no sensible reason but fear and hypothetical greed.
I don't see how anyone could be free and not worried by that.

So you're right, militias aren't really the problem except that everyone's vague idea of their function masks a lot of bogus motivations and practices (that like you said in the car scenario, could be fixed up with education and resources).

The second amendment should definitely be clarified. It's not just about anybody and their buddies getting guns to shoot the black helicopters. It's about voluntary and representative community based organization to counterbalance and assist a standing (paid) army. More like a volunteer fire department than a paramilitary organization. Or it should be anyway.


I'm from Idaho originally, where EVERY ONE has guns. I bought a AK-47 right after my 18th birthday because I couldn't buy a hand gun yet. I go shooting. I don't hunt, I don't "Carry a Strap", I just like to go shooting cans with my friends. Growing up in Idaho I also always thought I was a hippy, probably cuz I wasn't racist! Ha! But moving from there I've seen this fear of guns that Cali and allot of the west coast have. I've met people that think we shouldn't have any guns at all, only cops and military. I do see the gun as a tool that can be used as entertainment, and not like turning a electric saw into a automatic dildo, but like a car. I don't think that people should have guns with out takeing a class to teach them gun safety, or growing up being taught proper use. Some people think gun safety is a oxi-moronic phrase, but it's not, it's a very importiant step that shouldn't be over looked.

The Sons of Liberty where the first American Milita.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/sons.htm

They're the reason that we have 13 strips on our flag. (See more about that in my "Who's flag are you under" post in the political forum.) They we're also one of the major contributers to our country's removal from British rule.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Like folks said earlyer, it's not the principle of the milita that's on either side of politics, it the people in them. The milita is our only tool against the government at our last resort, it's the same thing as a neighborhood watch. People being united and prepaired. There's extremists for every group, to quote Mad Magazine, "You must be crazy if you think our fat idiot is smarter than their fat idiot."

And on the Zapatistas, they where pure blood Indians that where being massacered by the Mexican Government, that's genocide! They had no comunication to the out side world and their history and culture had been almost compleatly destroyed by generations of being hated and hunted. It took a couple years of gorilla warfare for them to even get noticed after they went "public". My family helped to fund doctors and teachers who went down to Chiapas in the late 90's and help them with health and agriculture. They had almost none of either and they wouldn't touch the Mexican Governments institutions for fear of what they might to do them or their family. If the Zapatistas hadn't been formed those Indians would probably be gone by now and we would have never heard a peep. They fought tooth and nail to become recognized, and that's all they wanted. There hasn't been a shot fired between these partys since, that's a milita.

That's not directed at you Raoul, just a starting point for me :)


Not to nitpick but EZLN= Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional= Zapatista Army of National Liberation. They organized themselves as an army and call themselves an army. Calling it a militia is imposing your own definition of who they are, and that is precisely what they are resisting.

Not sure what you mean by they had almost no agriculture unless you mean they were pushed off communal land by privatization and PRI bosses prior to the uprising.

Though the definiton expands beyond the EZLN to the Zapatista communities in Chiapas, and beyond. I call myself a Zapatista because I do the political and cultural practice of Zapatismo, not because I'm armed. because i'm interested in the political possibilities of an unarmed rebeliion in sites of privilege. I think the real threats facing us now are not ones that can be mediated by guns, in fact that will only marginalize your organization from whatever support you may have and get you infiltrated or killed. But by all means, have yourself a militia.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
McTools



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 181
 Reply with quote  

Confidential, your right, I was wrong to use the term milita for the EZLN. I'm also not trying to say that the Zapatista's are gun toters, but that they used the tools they needed to become recognized. They we're screaming and no one heard them, so they fought back.

On the Agriculture note, when the group my family worked with (Doctors of the World) got down to Chiapas, they had been slashing and burning for so long that the soil had no nutrience and the crops weren't growing. Slash and burn was pretty much the only system that they knew about. We taught them simple techniques such as fertilization and green housing so they could grow their own crops again. These arn't un-educated people, after years of fighting off the government and fighting for their lives, that was what they knew best, fighting. They where asking for help. So what we did down there was to train people for medical, educational, and agricultural trades and helped them get back on their feet a little. We helped them set up their own hospital and taught them to use the equipment to.

We've also helped in Russia after the fall of the SU setting up orphanages and schools, and most recently we've been in Nepal and the surounding areas for the past 3-4 years setting up systems for identifying traded women and children, and very happy to say that the system we set up is now used internationally as the standard for identifying traded sex slaves for before and after.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

Your family does nice work, obviously very talented. I don't mean to minimize their work at all, i'm just a little wary of the NGO model, even though I'm likely to end up working in it at some point. Some are more self serving as you probably know. Obeying the will of the communities in which they work is pretty important to me.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
C.R.A.Z.Y



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2738
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you.
 Reply with quote  

[quote="Confidential] Not to nitpick but EZLN= Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional= Zapatista Army of National Liberation. They organized themselves as an army and call themselves an army. Calling it a militia is imposing your own definition of who they are, and that is precisely what they are resisting. [/quote]


i dont think you are qualified to speak for them and when i say they functioned as a militia i am not trying to impose some term on them as you say...it is clear that you fail to see how i am trying to draw a comparison "OUTSIDE OF LABELS" a comparison defined by objectives and actions... jesus christ on a crutch next thing you will say they were resisting " me " lol

you are nitpicking for the sake of winnning a discussion but quit being coy...what once called themselves an army is now a political party and when they first started as an army their own government recognized them as revolutionary terrorists, as they were fighting tyranny in their government...just depends on who is affixing the label. they wouldnt have ever used the term militia anyways seeing as it is an english term in the first place, i gather.

but please tell me how, in the beginning, what they aimed to do and what their beginning objective was, differed much from the traditional definition and aims of a militia ( non right wing nut job type ) aside from the fact that they also incorporated doctors, journalists, and the people...guns were a mainstay for them. militia style. everyone had one.

by the way many of the people here on this board are well versed in the EZLN even if their parents didnt contribute, we are educated on the subject. i did a years project in school, the year of the uprising, for my high school college credit english course on the EZLN and they were indeed gun toters. before they could open their clinics and schools they got shot at a lot and you better believe they held their lines. with their guns. and in the very beginning they organized militia style. pictures used to circulate of them and in every picture they all held a gun, even though they were made up of doctors, nurses, farmers and everyone else, the guns were a main symbol they showed to the world, aside from the words of subcomandate marcos. they were much more but they felt that was important and it was a big part of who they were and what they did..their organizing "militia style" with similar intents and purposes as a militia. it was a third of what they were. social...political and military...and as an legally unrecognized milita-ry

im not trying to argue about definiton. they fancied themselves an army, their governement fancied them dangerous revolutionaries. they functioned then as a militia in part. not much different then the ones instrumental in forming america. take away the self given term army or the meaning of government labeled words revolutionaries/ terrorists and the basic aim of resisting and fighting tyranny from government remains the same as a militia.

it is just something i have respect for.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

Ok. I will quit being coy.
Post Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
mortalthoughts wrote:
redball wrote:
neveragainlikesheep wrote:
redball wrote:
I thought he infowars crowds were lefties.


Fuck no. They fashion themselves as "Libertarians" but the truth is they are just a bunch of nutjob right wingers.


Ah, okay. I don't know because I avoid it like the plague but every person who has ever linked me to an infowars article has been at least a social liberal, though some were political conservative.

fuck a 'leftie' fuck a 'libertairian' fuck a 'right wing'
have an opionon who gives a fuck where on what 'scale' you fall under


It just so happens that peoples beliefs fall under a category sometimes. And there's power in numbers. That's how it works.


right.....but saying your this or that to alot of people pigeon holes there beliefs because they dont want to fall on the 'other' side
Post Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

the mean wrote:
mortalthoughts wrote:
ive often wonder what the feds have done for me though besides tell me what NOT to do and take my tax $




im going to use that for a cd cover if i ever put out a album
Post Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MP3D
Straaaange FAMOUS!


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2622
 Reply with quote  

neveragainlikesheep wrote:
redball wrote:
I thought he infowars crowds were lefties.


Fuck no. They fashion themselves as "Libertarians" but the truth is they are just a bunch of nutjob right wingers.


absolutely wrong.
Post Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message
McTools



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 181
 Reply with quote  

Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Post Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
neveragainlikesheep



Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2536
Location: TKO from Tokyo
 Reply with quote  

MP3D wrote:
neveragainlikesheep wrote:
redball wrote:
I thought he infowars crowds were lefties.


Fuck no. They fashion themselves as "Libertarians" but the truth is they are just a bunch of nutjob right wingers.


absolutely wrong.


Really that's funny because that's what Alex Jones calls himself.

Maybe instead of just saying it's absolutely wrong why don't you start actually giving some proof back.
Post Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

For the sake of argument, let's say that a mass of individuals get themselves organized and outfitted and rose up against the government under the auspices of their constitutional rights. Would the government then react as if A) the militia was a treasonous institution and should therefore be reacted upon with extreme prejudice, or B) that an act of aggressive secession was occurring and it too should be reacted upon with extreme prejudice? In other words, wouldn't the government just squash the bastards? So really the right to assembled and bear arms is a joke since the government can assemble in much larger numbers and with much better weapons. It's like a passive-aggressive tyranny.
Post Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MP3D
Straaaange FAMOUS!


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2622
 Reply with quote  

neveragainlikesheep wrote:
MP3D wrote:
neveragainlikesheep wrote:
redball wrote:
I thought he infowars crowds were lefties.


Fuck no. They fashion themselves as "Libertarians" but the truth is they are just a bunch of nutjob right wingers.


absolutely wrong.


Really that's funny because that's what Alex Jones calls himself.

Maybe instead of just saying it's absolutely wrong why don't you start actually giving some proof back.


you cant simply place everyone who listens to infowars into one category. just as you cant place everyone that listens to hiphop or watches Oprah into one category. Alex Jones would call himself a partriot first, as does many of the subscribers to prisonplanet.tv and many of the callers that phone into the show. you start losing the plot when you begin to label people libertarians or neocons or right wing nut jobs. i for one, respect what he has done with his show. at least people are starting to wake up and realize that maybe alot of what they have been told is a lie and they are being encouraged to research for themselves for once. which is way more than powerful than starting a backyard militia.
Post Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19376
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Anymore I'm not sure who I trust with the guns. The people or the government. They both seem like psychos.

I suppose I may trust the gov a little more, just because the gov tends to be slower moving and less volatile, so you can actually stand a chance of leaping out of the way at the last minute.

But with people...they're just crazy.
Post Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:31 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:22 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon