Majority of Americans Want Militia Groups Outlawed

[struggle4progress]

By Freedom States Alliance , Working to Prevent Gun Violence - 17 Hours Ago

On Nov. 20th, a media research firm called Media Curves.com used a CNN report about an extremist organization called "Oath Keepers," to analyze beliefs and attitudes around militia groups and the Second Amendment. In short, once Americans become aware of the militia movement's extremist anti-government rhetoric, support for the "Second Amendment" declines drastically ...

The study was conducted by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website on November 19-20, to obtain viewers’ perceptions of a video clip featuring a group called the Oath Keepers. The group is a nonprofit organization that non-violently resists the actions taken by the U.S. Government to overstep constitutional boundaries. To view interest curves and detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.

The percentage of viewers that support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, declined from 80% to 73% after viewing the video. In addition, more than one-third of the viewers (37%) reported that the existence of the Oath Keepers organization causes them to feel less safe ...

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-majority-of-americans-want-militia-groups-outlawed-r-1258996999

[cowcommander]

1. And the majority of statistics

are bullshit

[struggle4progress]

3. You might want to look over a recent long ADL report to see that the concerns are well-founded

Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies (ADL Special Report)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x497873

[SteveM]

27. The courts, if I'm correct, have ruled that even those advocating violence...

such as the Communist Party, the Klan, etc., have a right to express those views and not be "outlawed." Further, there has been no attempt to "disarm" any of those groups which advocate violence.

If an organization conspires to carry out a specific violent attack (or any law-breaking), that is another matter.

I am quite liberal on this subject. I have seen the attempts to restrict, punish, harass, and arrest people I know who were engaged in both anti-war and pro-civil rights activities.

[paulsby]

50. correct,. look at the # of people here who shout

"fire in a crowded theatre" every 10 seconds in a justification of speech suppression.

not knowing that that concept was superseded in the constitutional case law, AND the fire/theater thang was used to justify the criminal prosecution of a WAR PROTESTOR

lol

it's also "FALSELY yelling fire..." but that's another issue

[krispos42]

2. Can't do that, much as they are right-wing hate-fests.

FWIW I'm also sure that if you asked the surveyees about restricting other rights to combat the militias, they would have agreed to that as well. Look at the way we rolled over and played dead... are still playing dead, if the main story on the front page is true, because of "terrah".

[struggle4progress]

5. Your claim ("Can't do that") is too vague to discuss. I'll stand up any day for various rights

of all sorts of groups that I despise (including klansmen, nazis, paedophiles ...) -- including the right to say all manner of things that make me uncomfortable or angry. But the rights are not infinite, nor can words and deeds be abstracted from their likely consequences when assessing whether words and deeds are protected

Your assertion Can't do that involves an ill-defined pronoun that, with uncertain reference, and it's pointless without more concrete detail to discuss whether we can or cannot "do that"

[krispos42]

6. You can't outlaw militia groups.

They meet on private property. It's members have the right to freely associate with whom they chose, and to talk about what they choose. They can call themselves whatever they want. If they're in the country and want to play Rambo, running around with rifles and shooting at scarecrows, well, that's their right as well.

So until law enforcement is aware of a specific crime being committed by them, there's nothing that can be done except to watch and listen.

The issue is not what is and isn't legal... obviously if they are plotting to assassinate somebody that is a prosecutable crime. But you can't bust'em up until you have evidence of such a plot.

[struggle4progress]

8. Again, it depends on exactly what one means by "outlawing militia groups." The mere fact

that an activity occurs "on private property" does not place the activity beyond the reach of any law. And while the right of people to freely associate and to discuss what they want, while training with rifles, might exist under some circumstances, it does not exist in any absolute and infinite sense, completely independent of the associations, the discussions, or the nature of the weapons-related activities. There being no definite bill language under discussion, I see no point in speculating about "rights" in generality

[jeepnstein]

9. You might feel very different...

about stripping political opponents of their rights if those wahoos ever wind up in the majority. I may not care for their message or their activities, but I'll be darned if I'm going to toss the Constitution in the toilet just to make myself "feel" better. If they are outlawed, they will just be driven underground and far more dangerous.

[struggle4progress]

11. I'm really not sure which of my remarks you find objectionable. Do you think that

absolutely any association of people on private property can carry out absolutely any discussion whatsoever while training with weapons, and be within their constitutional rights?

... In April, Richard Poplawski, a 22-year-old frequenter of white supremacist websites, was charged with fatally shooting three Pittsburgh cops. In May, former militiaman Scott Roeder was accused of gunning down abortion doctor George Tiller (he pleaded not guilty this week). In June, 88-year-old neo-Nazi James von Brunn allegedly killed an African American security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC ... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/feds-cracking-down-right-wing-terrorists

... In recent months, men with antigovernment, racist, anti-Semitic or pro-militia views have allegedly committed a series of high-profile murders — including the killings of six law enforcement officers since April. Most of these recent murders and plots seem to have been at least partially prompted by Obama's election. One man "very upset" with the election of America's first black president was building a radioactive "dirty bomb"; another, a Marine, was planning to assassinate Obama, as were two racist skinheads in Tennessee; still another angry at the election and said to be interested in joining a militia killed two sheriff's deputies in Florida. A man in Pittsburgh who feared Jews and gun confiscations murdered three police officers. Near Boston, a white man angered by the alleged "genocide" of his race shot to death two African immigrants and intended to murder as many Jews as possible. An 88-year-old neo-Nazi killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. And an abortion physician in Kansas was murdered by a man steeped in the ideology of the "sovereign citizens" movement ... http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1092

Aug 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
At a town hall meeting this week, “a partisan crowd of over 2,000 people” cheered on Rep. Wally Herger’s (R-CA) fear-mongering about the Obama administration and its policy proposals ... The audience also loudly cheered a man who stood up and declared himself to be “a proud right wing terrorist.” “Amen, God bless you,” Herger responded. “There is a great American.” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/22/herger-democracy/

[jeepnstein]

31. So who gets to decide...

what is acceptable speech and what is objectionable. When someone crosses that legal line and starts killing and building bombs they are liable to be arrested at any time. Do you want to make some kinds of speech, which you find personally objectionable, illegal? What happens when someone decides something you want to say is objectionable?

[DonP]

13. Like the police in Selma and other Southern towns in the '50's and '60's?

They had a bunch of "trouble makers" in their area too. People that were getting together on private property (churches) and fomenting major changes in laws, forming big voting blocs and demanding change from their governments, local, state and federal. Why some of their deacons and ministers actually had weapons too. Obviously those kind of people have to be kept in line, right?

Based on the suggestions from some folks here, the police were perfectly right to disrupt and try and outlaw those people and their organization. Why, the next thing you know they might demand the use of drinking fountains and sitting anywhere on the bus or at the lunch counters.

Can't have too much of that free speech and assembly thing by the "wrong sort of people" that can be dangerous.

If anybody needed further proof, gun control advocates also would be very happy to take away your other rights as well, if they feel it's convenient - and safe.

It's been said many times, "it's not the guns, its the control".

[SteveM]

28. Indeed, indeed. (nt)

[paulsby]

51. great post nt

[proteus_lives]

59. You nailed it!

:thumbsup:

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Can of worms you do NOT want to open.

The least of which is driving them underground. As it is, people see these groups and think they are pretty whacky. Sunlight/disinfectant, etc.

Driving them underground is incredibly dangerous. For one thing, you provide them with exactly the casus belli they WANT. Far better to leave them in the open, so the rational among us can actually go to work on their point of view. For instance, in Washington State, the militia is subject to the lawful orders of the Governor. Christine Gregoire. A liberal. DOH! Have a little fun with them. Ask them what rights the government is infringing upon? Be specific. Don't allow them to be vague. Pin them down.

A militia may be needed, from time to time, for the security of a free state. But as long as they are preaching strong anti-federal rhetoric and playing with thier guns and uniforms and whatever, it's prima facie evidence they are not acutally needed to curb federal power.

Actually, don't say prima facie, you'll waste too much time explaining it to them.


I have very interesting conversations with some people that fit the bill of the groups you are describing above. It's not hard to drive a truck through their false world view.

[eqfan592]

25. Some good points here.

Especially about driving them underground being dangerous.

[juno jones]

32. +1

You said it well. The first thing I thought when I saw the headline was: NNOOOOO! Don't drive them underground. Their persecution complex philosophy DEMANDS that very thing to happen because it justifies their existence and justifies rebellion.

We'd just be playing into their game.

[gorfle]

36. So what, exactly, do you propose be done, then?

The mere fact that an activity occurs "on private property" does not place the activity beyond the reach of any law.

As Krispos pointed out, until a law is broken, there is nothing that prevents a group of like-minded people from gathering and even shooting firearms together.

What exactly do you propose be done?

[midnight]

4. We can add it to the list.... Majority of Americans want this war ended not escalated.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. 1st ammendment + 2nd ammendment.

Freedom of assembly (association). Right to bear arms.

I don't give a shit what majority mob rule wants.
The BoR is there to protect the people from such tyranny.

[safeinOhio]

10. The wording of the 2nd solves the problem

"A well regulated militia" leaves open the State, not the Fed, regulating militias in that state. All militias could be required to register and comply with state laws.

[X_Digger]

12. Check the Dick Act of 1903

We have the 'organized militia' (read: national guard) and the 'unorganized militia' (everyone else).

Even if Heller hadn't confirmed what a majority of americans already knew (the 2nd protects an individual right, unconnected to militia service) the Dick Act codifies that those not in an organized militia or the regular army are part of the unorganized militia.

eta:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

[safeinOhio]

16. The unorganized militia

http://www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=248

The law recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend 24 drill periods per year and 5 days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903



The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military.
U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia<1>, sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808 Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia; between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.
With the increase in Federal funding came an increase in paperwork and bureaucracy. Before the passage of the Dick Act, militia affairs had been handled by the various bureaus of the War Department, as the subject dictated. But the 1903 act authorized, for the first time, the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs. Located in the Miscellaneous Division of the Adjutant General's office, this small section, headed by Major James Parker, Cavalry, with four clerks, was the predecessor of today's National Guard Bureau.

This section remained under the supervision of the Adjutant General's Office until War Department Orders on February 12, 1908 created the Division of Militia Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of War. The act also provided for "necessary clerical and official expense of the Division of Militia Affairs." Lieutenant Colonel Erasmus M. Weaver, Coast Artillery Corps, assumed duties as the division's first Chief. An increasing volume of business meant more personnel, and the four clerks had by this time increased to 15.
The Division remained a part of the Office of the Secretary of War until July 25, 1910 when the Chief was directed to report directly to the Army Chief of Staff. The Division continued to perform under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff until the passage of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. Then the Division of Militia Affairs became the Militia Bureau of the War Department, under the direct supervision of the Secretary of War.

[safeinOhio]

20. So the Dick Act would not only

make sure the "unorganized militia", or virtually all males, have the right to arms, it also makes it clear once they organize they come under the control of the Fed and State. That would mean once they start training in uniforms under a chain of command, etc, they could be considered organized.

[HALO141]

21. No. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

23. No. The Governor would have to conscript them.

Now, that CAN be done, maybe put them to work building levee's against flooding or something. See how they like the idea of being 'called up' for service. :)

But no, on your other point.

[X_Digger]

24. Not sure how you get from A to B

It codified two classes of militia- the national guard and everyone else. I don't see anything that says 'woops, if you all wear the same clothes, you're now the organized militia'.

[safeinOhio]

26. If the Courts haven't said what "organized" means

I guess I'll have to go with your noes for now.

[X_Digger]

30. Well, the Dick Act didn't say, but 10 USC 311 does. n/t

[beevul]

46. No it really doesn't.

The second amendment is a restriction on the government, specifically stating what government may not do, and prefacing it by stating why.


Says so right here in the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

http://billofrights.org/





The "militia" reading of that text, is dead.

[paulsby]

52. rubbish

the right doesn't belong to "the militia". it belongs to THE PEOPLE.

read it again

militia is mentioned in a prefatory clause, of which other examples existed in our history.

and you don't understand what "regulated" means either (when the constitution was written), based on your post

[slackmaster]

14. But that pesky FIRST AMENDMENT is always getting in the way

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[yodoobo]

63. 1st amendment doesn't protect dangerous extremist

who pose a real and direct threat to the rest of us.

[metalbot]

69. It protects their first amendment rights

The first amendment protects exactly what it says it protects.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They can get together, and they can say what they want as long as they don't cross the line into conspiring to commit a crime. If they are "dangerous", then indict them on the charges related to endangering the rest of society (presumably via proof of some conspiracy to commit violence). Until such proof is obtained, they are absolutely protected by the first amendment. Just because you don't like or are afraid of the rhetoric stemming from a group of people doesn't mean that they don't have the same rights that you do.

[rrneck]

15. Vague indeed.

We have a post about a poll advocating "militia groups" be outlawed. Then a claim that one response was too vague (#5) asserting that "the rights are not infinite" and that words and deeds {cannot} be abstracted from their likely consequences.

This is vague fearmongering about a group of people who may or may not be dangerous in actuality, but who are perceived to be dangerous politically.

Do you really want to go down that road?

[struggle4progress]

18. ... “We will not fear our government; they will fear us,” one man, who appeared to be on active duty

said in an angry video sent to the Oath Keepers blog. In another video at the site, a man who said he was a former Army paratrooper in Afghanistan and Iraq described President Obama as “an enemy of the state” ...
The Second Wave
Return of the Militias
http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/main/The_Second_Wave.pdf

Oath Keepers Say They’re on Patrol in Iraq
Posted in Militias by Rob Waters on October 21, 2009
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/10/21/oath-keepers-say-theyre-on-patrol-in-iraq/

... The group's Web site, www.oathkeepers.org, features videos and testimonials in which supporters compare President Barack Obama's America to Adolf Hitler's Germany. They also liken Obama to England's King George III during the American Revolution. One member, in a videotaped speech at an event in Washington, D.C., calls Obama "the domestic enemy the Constitution is talking about" ...
READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States
Group asks police and military to lay down arms in response to orders deemed unlawful
By ALAN MAIMON
http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html

In Hamilton, they call themselves Celebrating Conservatism. In Eureka, they have become known as the Lincoln County Watch. Down in Bozeman, they are the Oath Keepers ... "Over the past year in Montana, we have witnessed a resurgence of those anti-Semitic, anti-government groups," said Travis McAdam, executive director of the Montana Human Rights Network. "Militia Montana, the Montana Freemen - they're back and they're organizing again under different names," he added. "It's frighteningly similar to how it felt in 1993 and 1994 at the height of the militia movement here in Montana" ... Lincoln County Watch .. says it's against democracy, "because they always deteriorates into mob rule" ... Down in Bozeman, residents have recently found racist literature left at their homes and on public bulletin boards. McAdam said the fliers promote a new anti-Semitic Web site called "Stormfront" ...
State seeing new rise in anti-government, hate groups
By MARTIN J. KIDSTON Independent Record | Posted: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:45 am | (139) Comments
http://www.helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/article_ccf7b5d2-d06b-11de-bc4e-001cc4c03286.html

Look! Wackos with guns!

[SteveM]

29. So, we simply call "wackos" a militia, then outlaw them? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Hahhaahahaha what, 'stormfront' is 'new'?

I want to call this satire, but...

[struggle4progress]

35. The assholes embolden each other: a few years back, when the Phelps-Westboro morons

passed through my town, a few chickenshits followed it with some quick drive-by cross-burnings (Quick! Put up the cross! Light it! Drive off really fast!); almost nobody could remember the last time anything like that happened in this very blue area

I don't know the exact connection between Stormfront and Oath Keepers, though it should be clear from links I've posted that Oath Keepers is part of the lunatic fringe (and uses fringe outlets like Alex Jones) -- but clearly in Bozeman, Oath Keeper activity is occurring in parallel with Stormfront recruiting efforts. Without multiple accounts, it's difficult to form a precise picture, since press coverage is often superficial and uninformed: McAdam, for example, may have shown the reporter a Stormfront flier with a comment like "This is new" (referring to the recruiting leaflet) and the reporter may have misunderstood

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Ah, that makes sense.

Because yeah, the stormfront assholes are not new. But I can see how that would be confusing, if the parallel recruiting effort is new.

One would think these 'oath keepers' would utterly reject the Stormfront assholes, if they were actually true to mission.

[paulsby]

53. this country was FOUNDED by wackos with guns

so get a grip

[PavePusher]

17. Thanks for volunteering for the Thought Police.

Are you done yet?

[eqfan592]

19. Well, I'll give ya this s4p.

I'm glad to see you here and arguing a point instead of doing the drive by posting, so I give you props for that, even though I don't agree with you.

I do agree that there are things to be concerned about with these groups, but until they actually break a law I don't see what we CAN do about it that wouldn't feed into their distrust and swell their ranks, not to mention violate the constitution. It's a loose loose prospect.

You simply can't combat an ideology such as this with force of law.

[Tejas]

33. "Oath Keepers" are not militia

Saying they are resembles the foolish yakyakyak from that media whore Chris Matthews.

[gorfle]

37. On Oath Keepers.

First of all, having watched the video on the provided link, and having briefly visited the Oath Keepers web site ( http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/ ), I don't see much objectionable about them at first glance. I think they are slightly paranoid, but vigilance is said to be the price of freedom.

Basically, what they seem to espouse is for government employees, such as soldiers and police officers, to refuse to act on orders that are against the Constitution of the United States. I'm all for that.

[struggle4progress]

41. Before you cheer yourself hoarse, you might want to learn what THEIR view of the Constitution is:

This weekend the Oath Keepers are holding their first national Conference in Las Vegas ... A prominent speaker at the Conference this weekend in Las Vegas is former Sheriff Richard Mack; he also has a testimonial on the Oath Keepers website ... He is a strong proponent of any and all States right to secede from the Union at anytime. He also believes strongly that no federal law can be enforced within a state unless the state concedes to it. On his website he jokes about how much he would like to see a county sheriff arrest an Internal Revenue Service or Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent for trespass ...
Controversial Oath Keepers' Conference in Las Vegas this Weekend
Oct 24, 2009
by Bob Gordon
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280996

[eqfan592]

42. So he's all about states rights.

It's a bit extreme, admittedly, but he's pretty damn far from the next Hitler.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Some of it is blatantly illegal, in practice. Texas vs. White.

There is no legal right to secession from the Union.

You could maybe get away with it if you asked for congress to 'let you go' and 2/3rds of the states ratified it, but it's highly theoretical.

[eqfan592]

80. I never claimed there was a legal right to secession.

But secessionist movements are far from a new thing, and while they are extreme, I'm not convinced they are the most horrible thing in the universe either, and that we must pass laws outlawing them, which is what the OP seems to be interested in.

[gorfle]

45. Pretty extreme

It's pretty extreme, but it is extreme on the side of limiting federal power and preventing federal oppression.

I like that aspect of it.

[Tejas]

56. OMFG!!!1!11! SECESSION!1!!

BFD, like nobody else has ever mentioned the topic.

Is that all you have?

[Tejas]

57. Agreed.

Any LEO etc that wants to violate the Constitution or my Civil Rights deserves to be run out of town.

Appears to me that these guys are simply swearing/reaffirming that they will refuse to do unconstitutional/unlawful acts.

[davepc]

39. Yeay, more Joyce Foundation anti-gun astoturf!

The Freedom States Alliance is changing the way America thinks about guns in order to build and mobilize a grassroots movement. By raising money, organizing supporters, and sponsoring Internet and public education campaigns on behalf of gun violence prevention organizations, the Freedom States Alliance is reframing and redefining public perceptions of the gun issue.

Building a true grassroots movement is the only way the Freedom States Alliance can channel money and resources directly to advocates working in the trenches to turn the tide of the gun violence epidemic. Our new grassroots approach includes creative and aggressive outreach, local and statewide media campaigns, and utilizing the Internet to organize supporters and to raise financial support.

Changing the Way Americans Think About Guns
Before America can enact significant policies to reduce gun violence we must challenge the belief that our citizens are safe in a country flooded with deadly guns; from junk handguns and cop-killing assault weapons to deadly sniper rifles and weapons designed for the battlefield. We have to engage in a dialog about whether Americans can be truly free when gun violence terrorizes our communities, destroys our families, and plagues our nation.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davepc/2

[eqfan592]

40. Jesus....

...they are very Orwellian in a very terrifying sort of way.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. The solution is to laugh at them.

These type groups aren't new. I remember seeing network news clips in the 1950s (Yes, I am an old fart.) about groups that armed themselves and practiced military skills. Back then they were afraid we were going to be invaded by the Russians, or a Russian ally, and that the Army would not be able to handle it and they would be needed to fight off the foreign invaders.

The new groups are little different.

Especially do not attempt to outlaw them. The laws that you create would trample the Constitution and would eventually be used against you.

[Tim01]

47. The first amendment was written hundreds of years ago.

The founding fathers never intended for it to protect militia groups.
:eyes:

[PavePusher]

48. Uhhh, wait a minute...

:rofl:

[taurus145]

61. So

just what, exactly, do you think the Continental Army was? You know, that group led by George Washington?

[eqfan592]

81. Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. ;) (nt)

[paulsby]

49. i bet the majority of americans

don't want the exclusionary rule either (the rule that evidence obtained contary to case/constitutional law is suppressed and cannot be used against a defendant).

but see... we have this pesky thing callled the constitution

you can't criminalize militias any more than you can criminalize an unpopular religion or political party

[pipoman]

54. I had a similar thought as I was reading the thread..

It seems that nearly every poll I have read about gay marriage, including actual voting, has resulted in opposition/defeat of the idea of gay marriage. I am guessing a similarly slanted poll question about outlawing homosexuality would also result in significant support.

[paulsby]

55. i'm not sure i'd go there

i have plenty of relatives for instance, who are against gay marriage, but think whatever people do in the privacy of their homes is their business. i don't think the MAJORITY think homosexuality should be criminalized. i'd guess offhand, it's maybe 10% who think so. i'm hopeful for marriage equality. most of the votes have been NEAR 50%, and even 10 yrs ago, they were nowhere near that high. i see the pendulum swingin' our way

[JonQ]

58. Freedom of association

sorry, can't do that.

Also, how many grabbers have claimed that the 2nd exists only for militia groups? Ban militias and then they could use that as an argument to ban the 2nd. I wouldn't put it past them.

[proteus_lives]

60. They are breaking no laws.

So I would never support a ban against them.

And I'd imagine the majority of DUers would agree. We should fight against authoritarian measures.

[yodoobo]

62. Throw in the teabaggers and we got a deal

The 1st amendment does not protect dangerous extremist.

[benEzra]

65. And who gets to define "dangerous extremist" views?

Would you be OK with Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzales making that call?

[yodoobo]

67. The sane majority

of course.

[eqfan592]

74. Wow, how very anti-progressive of you. (nt)

[yodoobo]

76. It is the progressive and liberals who ARE the sane majority

So your charge is quite unfounded.

thanks anyway.

[eqfan592]

82. You're saying that progressive liberals....

....are in favor of strictly limiting the rights of minorities due to their, in your opinion, dangerous ideas? Progressives and liberals may be sane, and they may be in the majority, but you are NOT a progressive if you think that this is a good idea, which was the point I was making, so my charge is perfectly founded. Your idea of "sane majority" would have had those of us in the peace movement during the ramp up to the Iraq war charged with crimes for our "dangerous ideas" that went against the then "sane majority" and their opinions. Every major political movement that started out small but grew over time would have been crushed by the "sane majority" of the times, such as the Civil Rights movement, the Womens Rights movement, etc. Many in the "sane majority" at the time of those movements thought the ideas those movements proposed were "dangerous."

So to repeat, your idea is NOT progressive nor liberal in any way, shape or form. Hell, most conservatives would likely be appalled by your "sane majority" idea as well.

[benEzra]

77. As expressed through their elected officials, right?

Meaning, you must have been OK with the Bush/Cheney blacklists, too?

I know someone else who believed that the "sane majority" should be able to blacklist people who have committed no crimes, and revoke their freedoms under the Bill of Rights without due process...

[eqfan592]

66. It does, in fact, protect extremist's.

And just because you don't like them or are frightened by them doesn't make the inherently dangerous. Until they actually do something illegal, then there isn't anything we can nor should do to them.

[yodoobo]

68. by definition, if they are outlawed

Then they would be doing something illegal. (Which was the basis of the poll )

[eqfan592]

70. I guess you missed the "nor should" part of my post?

I fully understand what the poll was about. Honestly, I think your ideal is equally as dangerous and extreme as the extremists you fear so much.

[metalbot]

71. Got any other portions of the bill of rights you'd like to throw away?

[yodoobo]

72. The bill of rights does not protect harmful behavior

Never has

[eqfan592]

73. Ohhhh, I beg to differ.

Given the fact that "harmful" behavior is purely subjective, the bill of rights most certainly does protect what many have considered "harmful" behavior. Most think that a KKK rally is "harmful" behavior, but most also agree that they have the right to rally. Many considered anti-war protests "harmful" behavior, but again, few questioned our right to do so. That basic idea of the 1st and 2nd Amendments was to insure the right of the people to question and, if need be, overthrow the government should it require doing so, which anybody in the government would likely consider "harmful" behavior.

You really need to learn a bit more about the nation you live in, and it's governing principles. Your lack of understanding in this subject matter has lead you to harbor some frankly disturbing beliefs.

[yodoobo]

75. I've heard it all now

The constitution does not protect the right of the people to overthrow the government.

In fact, this is EXACTLY the sort of talk that the gun nuts in militias salivate over.


Furthermore, attempting to wage war on the government (i.e. overthrow) is defined as treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Interestingly (from the above article):
"In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war".

I would argue that many of these militias groups are doing exactly this..."assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war"

[metalbot]

79. I notice you don't actually quote the constitution

Here, let me quote it for you:

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

How are the militia levying War against the United States? Once they start doing that, you can charge them with treason, but until then, you can't simply "ban" them.

Some salient points from the Wiki link to In Ex Parte Bollman that you apparently decided to ignore:

"Three main points were established in this early and formative civil liberties case:"

The import one being:

"The Constitutional definition of treason is limited to actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government.
That is, treason is essentially a "military" offense. For instance, no amount of anti-government speech can qualify as treason, although giving away military secrets might."

So until a militia takes a concrete action to forcefully overthrow the government, it clearly isn't treason. Training is not treason. Spouting anti-government speech, including the assertion that the government should be overthrown, is not treason.

[eqfan592]

83. Try actually reading the constitution, then reading some about the people who helped create it.

They very much DID want an armed populace, in no small part to discourage the government from ever attempting to trample the rights of its citizens. The implication being that should the government ever attempt to do so, the armed populace would be able to defend its rights against the government, through force of arms should it become necessary.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"(And) what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

The implications are fairly clear here. The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in place simply because the founding fathers thought firearms were neat. It was to aid in the defense of life and liberty of the population of our nation, be the threat external or internal.

Now does my saying this because I think we need to overthrow our government now? No, I'm not, and I don't. But your fooling yourself if you don't think that bill of rights isn't a listing of rights the government can't infringe upon in order for the people to keep its power in check.

[eqfan592]

84. Here's another good quote.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

[metalbot]

78. It doesn't protect illegal behavior

For example, if you and I get together and plot on how to rob a bank, go obtain weapons to do so, and start staking out the bank, that's illegal. We're conspiring to commit a crime.


In the case of the militias, they haven't conspired to commit a crime yet, unless you know something I don't. They might want to overthrow the government, but until they start plotting specific illegal actions to do so, they are protected. You can't simply "ban" a militia, because that's a violation of the first amendment. You can charge members of a militia with a crime (conspiracy to commit X) once they've committed that crime, but you can't ban them from getting together and training. I don't see how that could be any clearer.

[aikoaiko]

64. Its all very clear. Anyone can assemble and associate as long as they don't break laws by doing so

Including inciting a riot, threatening the president, conspiring to commit violence, etc etc.

And yes, they can say mean things about the government if they wish.

[rrneck]

85. I guess while we're at it

we should outlaw LARPers, paintballers, and civil war reenactors as well.

Sheeeesh.