Okla. tea parties, lawmakers, mull official militia.

[SirNitram]

Link

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.

ad_icon

In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.

Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.

Some conservative legislators in Oklahoma say talk of a militia, which would be privately recruited, armed and trained, goes too far.

"If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."

Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's communications director Paul Sund also discounted the militia discussion, saying the National Guard handles state emergencies and security.

Federal authorities say that radical militia groups have not emerged in Oklahoma, unlike many other states, in part because of the legacy of the Oklahoma City bombing. On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Tim McVeigh exploded a truckbomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Last month, FBI agents conducted a raid on the Hutaree militia group in southern Michigan and accused members of plotting to kill law enforcement officers.

Don't like the outcome of an election? Form an armed group to oppose it. For bonus chutzpa, seek to make it legally mandated in the home of McVeigh's attack.

[FSTargetDrone]

So, what exactly are these militia-organizers suggesting? There's a lot of vague talk:

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.

No kidding. Do they, what, pretend they are going to somehow have a standoff with the Federal Government? Because they aren't talking about making protest signs or staging marches on Washington.

All this wanktastic bullshit might actually be funny except that some nut could actually try something. There's no other way to interpret this other than some sort of violent encounter with the government. At least I'm not seeing any other.

Sen. Steve Russell is quite correct.

[Anguirus]

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Never. For reference, see 1865.

[Sea Skimmer]

States all had large independent militias until 1916 (most still have small token ones) until 1916 when the federal government convinced the states to let the manpower form the basis of the National Guard. But this idea of private militias, yeah it won’t go far. It’d be perfectly legal but even people with very little sense can see it’s stupid to put your name on the rolls of the such an organization.

[Patrick Degan]

Amusing. They think they're going to repeal the Civil War.

[The Romulan Republic]

Amusing. They think they're going to repeal the Civil War.

Considering the loss of life that stunts like this could lead to, I wouldn't call it amusing. More like horrifying and sad.

[Stuart Mackey]

Amusing. They think they're going to repeal the Civil War.

Considering the loss of life that stunts like this could lead to, I wouldn't call it amusing. More like horrifying and sad.

Sounds like bread and circuses to me. Who gains from this nonsense?

[Twigler]

What I'm curious about is what they plan to do with this militia once it's organised.

...to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

That sounds frighteningly like the type of militia they claim not to want to create. If they're so worried about these so-called federal infringements, what benefits would a militia give them that normal democratic processes won't? The only ones I can see start with intimidation and end with violence. I find it hard to get my head around that some people consider this perfectly acceptable in a democracy.
But maybe I'm missing something.

[aieeegrunt]

What I'm curious about is what they plan to do with this militia once it's organised.

Keep the darkies and the hippies and the liberals in their proper place of course. I think they're hoping for a repeat of the Sturm Abteilung of the 1930's.

[ShadowDragon8685]

This is purest idiocy.

They don't know what an armed militia could do to stop 'Da Feds', they just know they want one because they're bitter, clutching their bibles and guns, and want to surround themselves with more bitter people clutching bibles and guns to assure themselves they're not alone in their bitterness, and that they will 'do something' when the 'time comes'.

And of course, if you get a bunch of wankers together, the kind of person inclined to clutch a gun and a bible and bitterly assure each other that when the 'time comes' that they will 'do something,' you will get those people deciding the 'time has come' and 'doing something', whether you like it or not. At which point, the state government will realize it's created something it can't control, try to control it, and the next thing you know, Oklahoma City has been siezed by armed radicals claiming that in the name of the State of Okalahoma they've taken the imposters out of power and are administering the state in a state of emergency, and issue a general call to arms in the name of the proud state of Okalahoma.

At which pioint, the National Guard is called in to eradicate them and restore order, with any luck. Otherwise, perhaps bomb all the airports and bases not under Federal control in Okalahoma to the ground, seal the borders, and say "you want to be your own state? Fine, have it your way. All persons in the state of Okalahoma who still want to be citizens of the United States have thirty days to leave the state, then you're all secessionist assholes and we're not letting anything through."

[Broomstick]

At which point the good citizens of Oklahoma who are OK with the Federal government go to war with the yahoos and you have a mini-civil war taking place.

The idea is idiocy.

[Liberty]

What I'm curious about is what they plan to do with this militia once it's organised.

...to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

That sounds frighteningly like the type of militia they claim not to want to create. If they're so worried about these so-called federal infringements, what benefits would a militia give them that normal democratic processes won't? The only ones I can see start with intimidation and end with violence. I find it hard to get my head around that some people consider this perfectly acceptable in a democracy.
But maybe I'm missing something.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Scary militia.

Also, are they seriously intending to try to oppose federal laws with military force? Because, I have to say, that has happened before. The nullification crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis), for instance, when South Carolina (surprise surprise) nullified federal tariffs in 1832. I'm afraid that didn't go so well. Then, of course, there is the fucking Civil War! Moral: the federal government trumps the state governments. Period. I mean, I get that they don't like it, but too bad. Sometimes life sucks.

And honestly, it might be kind of interesting to go back to the states having a lot more say and running themselves. Because I think what you would fast find is that anyone with a brain would get the hell out of, say, Georgia, and flee to, say, Vermont. You would quickly have "civilized" states with good schools, health care, etc, and "uncivilized" states where even the rights of blacks would be in question. That's my prediction, anyway.

[Solauren]

Are they not basically trying to incite people to take up arms against the Federal Government?

Isn't that, oh, Treason?

Inform the organizers of that, and if they don't stop, arrest them on those grounds (or using anti-terror laws).

Then send them to the proper holding facility for processing.

[Ekiqa]

Amusing. They think they're going to repeal the Civil War.

Considering the loss of life that stunts like this could lead to, I wouldn't call it amusing. More like horrifying and sad.

Sounds like bread and circuses to me. Who gains from this nonsense?

The standard group: the raich upper class.

[Drooling Iguana]

Are they not basically trying to incite people to take up arms against the Federal Government?

Isn't that, oh, Treason?

Criticizing a Republican government is treason. Taking up arms against a Democratic government is just good ol' fashioned American patriotism.

After all, the people who voted for Obama weren't real Americans anyway.

[Ritterin Sophia]

This is purest idiocy.

They don't know what an armed militia could do to stop 'Da Feds', they just know they want one because they're bitter, clutching their bibles and guns, and want to surround themselves with more bitter people clutching bibles and guns to assure themselves they're not alone in their bitterness, and that they will 'do something' when the 'time comes'.

And of course, if you get a bunch of wankers together, the kind of person inclined to clutch a gun and a bible and bitterly assure each other that when the 'time comes' that they will 'do something,' you will get those people deciding the 'time has come' and 'doing something', whether you like it or not. At which point, the state government will realize it's created something it can't control, try to control it, and the next thing you know,

You should've stopped right here, everything up to here is a sensible idea of how the scenario would play out.

Oklahoma City has been siezed by armed radicals claiming that in the name of the State of Okalahoma they've taken the imposters out of power and are administering the state in a state of emergency, and issue a general call to arms in the name of the proud state of Okalahoma.

At which pioint, the National Guard is called in to eradicate them and restore order, with any luck. Otherwise, perhaps bomb all the airports and bases not under Federal control in Okalahoma to the ground, seal the borders, and say "you want to be your own state? Fine, have it your way. All persons in the state of Okalahoma who still want to be citizens of the United States have thirty days to leave the state, then you're all secessionist assholes and we're not letting anything through."

This is simply an illogical reaction based on fear. Given the proximity to four major US bases (Ft Sill, Ft Bliss, Ft Riley, and Ft Worth), countless airbases, and numerous armories along the way, there's no way this is getting beyond the city-wide problem stage IF it gets that far.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Shadowdragon do you enjoy coming up with crazy far out of field stuff or what? Seriously, I'm a pessimist and I'd never even consider the possibility of the radicals siezing Oklahoma City scenario. Shit, I am willing to bet there are more police in the city than there are yahoos that think forming a militia would be a good idea/cool. The police are also far more likely to be able to act in a coordinated fashion on a city-wide scale than any group of militia nuts. General Schatten I think handled the state going crazy business.

Alternatively, I suppose he could be more prone to hyperbole than even Shroom Man.

Edit: Fixed typo.

[jcow79]

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

This line in particular sounds to me like they're looking for a way to get their hands on some meaningful ordinance. I mean, to actually "protect themselves from" the government as they're claiming they would need high explosives, assault rifles, anti-air defenses, mines, mortars, rockets, etc.

*grammar edit.

[Coyote]

It is telling that they want to organize into a militia to defend themselves from, apprantly, the types of people who want to do exactly what they are trying to do.

These are a bunch of --as mentioned-- angry and bitter people who in all honesty don't know exactly what it is they are angry or bitter about. So they want to get a group of like-minded (but unfocused) people together so they don't feel so silly.

We're going to see a sharp rise in this (I am guessing, of course) as we get closer to Tax Day in the US. Then, once people look at their tax forms and realize that they're not that bad off or they are not being tattoo'd with bar codes for UN concentration camps, it'll melt.

Every time there's a Democratic President (much less a triple-play of Democratic Executive, Senate and House) the US becomes crowded with loud, angry, grumbling people who have bought the line that the Democrats are "bad" but can't articulate why based on any of their own reasoning.

[Themightytom]

The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

This line in particular sounds to me like they're looking for a way to get their hands on some meaningful ordinance. I mean, to actually "protect themselves from" the government as they're claiming they would need high explosives, assault rifles, anti-air defenses, mines, mortars, rockets, etc.

*grammar edit.

Such ordinance costs money and isn't the chief complaint for Teabaggers that they don't want to pay taxes? Funding a militia is like a less efficient method of raising an army than the one they wish to subvert, and if they actually managed to pull enough supporters together to represent a credible threat, they'd have a pretty solid voting block anyway

[jcow79]

Such ordinance costs money and isn't the chief complaint for Teabaggers that they don't want to pay taxes? Funding a militia is like a less efficient method of raising an army than the one they wish to subvert, and if they actually managed to pull enough supporters together to represent a credible threat, they'd have a pretty solid voting block anyway

And yet here they are advocating JUST that. Maybe they don't really have ambitions of fighting the government but want to be able to play with bigger and badder toys? I don't see how the line I quoted could be construed as anything other than "I have a 2nd Amendment right to whatever weapons I need to put me on par with the government!"

[Themightytom]

And yet here they are advocating JUST that. Maybe they don't really have ambitions of fighting the government but want to be able to play with bigger and badder toys? I don't see how the line I quoted could be construed as anything other than "I have a 2nd Amendment right to whatever weapons I need to put me on par with the government!"

This is likely going to be sucked dry by politicians and opportunists anyway jsut like the minuteman movement was. Get a bunch off rednecks all fiercely adamant about soemthing,r ally them around a cause, organize some meetings, set up some dues and then run like hell before they start do anything serious. You walk away with contacts, a support base, some professional credentials and fond memories.

Until you know... a clinic gets bombed some anthrax mailed or some fertilizer ends up missing.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The more I read about the far right the more they scare me. Oh sure there have been nuts in the past, but usually they are ignored or dismissed by the Far Right. NOW now we have people actively encouraging them.

I mean, back during Clinton you had kooks out running in militias trying to cause trouble. but at the time they were mostly ignored by the Right. Sure the GOP didn't like Clinton, but they still treated him like a Human. now however, now we have Big names in the GOP telling the nation that not only is Obama the Antichrist and out to destroy America, but that his government is a Shame, that he isn't "Really" the president.

There is a HUGE factor to embolden the kooks here. its one thing to think "I hate this guy, lets off him" but its another to think "I hate this guy AND everyone says he isn't 'really' the President, his government is a shame! taking up arms is a patriotic duty!"

Being told by Foxnews, by high ranking people in the GOP that the government isn't just wrong, but is outright 'illegal' is stepping over the line so far I can't even really imagine these people as rational any more.

[Teebs]

Such ordinance costs money and isn't the chief complaint for Teabaggers that they don't want to pay taxes? Funding a militia is like a less efficient method of raising an army than the one they wish to subvert, and if they actually managed to pull enough supporters together to represent a credible threat, they'd have a pretty solid voting block anyway

I've always had the impression that the US far right are only anti-tax if it doesn't involve military spending.

[Themightytom]

Such ordinance costs money and isn't the chief complaint for Teabaggers that they don't want to pay taxes? Funding a militia is like a less efficient method of raising an army than the one they wish to subvert, and if they actually managed to pull enough supporters together to represent a credible threat, they'd have a pretty solid voting block anyway

I've always had the impression that the US far right are only anti-tax if it doesn't involve military spending.

Which brings me to observing the irony here. The advancements in weapons technology and the expansion of the military that rendered the 2nd amendment a joke is pretty much their fault.